Manaf vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 5007 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
     WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 14TH VAISAKHA, 1944
                     BAIL APPL. NO. 3175 OF 2022


PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

            MANAF
            AGED 34 YEARS
            SON OF NASEER, KALLUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, KAVUMKARA KARA,
            VELLOORKKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686669
            BY ADV. ANIL K.MUHAMED


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

            STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
            BY ADV.SMT. SREEJA V, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


     THIS   BAIL   APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
04.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No.3175 of 2022
                               2



               P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
             --------------------------------
                  B.A.No.3175 of 2022
              -------------------------------
          Dated this the 4th day of May, 2022


                       ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 439

of Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Petitioner is the accused in S.C. No.119 of

2022 on the file of Assistant Sessions court,

Muvattupuzha. The above case is registered

against the petitioner and another alleging

offences punishable under Sections 450, 394, r/w

34 of IPC. Petitioner was arrested in connection

with the above case on 08.11.2021 and he is in

custody from that date onwards.

3.The prosecution case is that on 27.10.2021

at about 3 pm, the accused in this case and

another in furtherance of their common intention

to commit robbery, trespassed into the rental B.A.No.3175 of 2022

residential house of CW1 Chellappa at EMS Nagar

Vazhappilly kara and committed theft of mobile

phone from the hands of CW2 using force. When

CW2 and CW3 tried to get back the mobile phone

from accused, the accused pushed then down and

CW2 and CW3 sustained injuries. Hence it is

alleged that the accused committed the offence.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the

Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the petitioner is in custody from

08.11.2021 onwards. The counsel submitted that

there is no criminal antecedents against the

petitioner. The counsel also submitted that, since

the final report is already filed and the trial in the

case will not be scheduled in the near future, the

petitioner may be released on bail. The learned

Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail

application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that

the petitioner committed serious offences. It is B.A.No.3175 of 2022

true that the allegation against the petitioner is

very serious. But no criminal antecedent is

reported against the petitioner. The final report

in this case is already filed and the matter is

pending trial as S.C.No.119 of 2022. Considering

the facts and circumstances of the case and since

there is no criminal antecedents reported against

the petitioner, I think the petitioner can be

released on bail on stringent conditions. I also

taken note of the fact that the petitioner is in

custody from 08.11.2021 onwards.

5. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle

that the bail is the rule and the jail is the

exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Chidambaram. P v Directorate of

Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870), after

considering all the earlier judgments, observed

that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail

remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is B.A.No.3175 of 2022

the rule and refusal is the exception so as to

ensure that the accused has the opportunity of

securing fair trial.

6. Considering the dictum laid down in the

above decision and considering the facts and

circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is

allowed with the following directions:

1. Petitioner shall be released

on bail on executing a bond for

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

Thousand only) with two solvent

sureties each for the like sum to

the satisfaction of the

jurisdictional Court.

2. The petitioner shall not,

directly or indirectly make any

inducement, threat or promise to

any person acquainted with the

facts of the case so as to dissuade B.A.No.3175 of 2022

him/her from disclosing such facts

to the Court or to any police

officer.

3. Petitioner shall not leave

India without permission of the

jurisdictional Court.

4. Petitioner shall not commit

an offence similar to the offence

of which he is accused, or

suspected, of the commission of

which he is suspected.

5. If any of the above

conditions are violated by the

petitioner, the jurisdictional Court

can cancel the bail in accordance

to law, even though the bail is

granted by this Court. The

prosecution and the victim are at

liberty to approach the B.A.No.3175 of 2022

jurisdictional court to cancel the

bail, if there is any violation of the

above conditions.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE DM B.A.No.3175 of 2022

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3175/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE1 CERTIFIED TRUE COOPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 07-04-2022 IN CRL. M. A. NO. 72 OF 2022 & CRL. M. A. NO. 82 OF 2022

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE