Noufal N vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 5125 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
   FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 16TH VAISAKHA, 1944
                    BAIL APPL. NO. 3413 OF 2022
   CRIME NO.134/2022 OF Walayar Police Station, Palakkad
PETITIONERS/ ACCUSES NOS. 3 TO 5

    1     NOUFAL N
          AGED 28 YEARS
          SON OF NAZAR, VENNAKKARA, THIRUNELLAI, NURANI,
          PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678004
    2     ABUTHAHIR M
          AGED 31 YEARS
          SON OF MOHAMMED, MULLAVALAPPIL HOUSE, KALLIKKAD,
          PALLIPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678004
    3     NISHAD
          AGED 35 YEARS
          SON OF SUDHEER, VALLIKKATH HOUSE, MYTHRI NAGAR,
          EAST YAKKARA, PALAKKAD., PIN - 678701
          BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

         STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
         KERALA, PIN - 682031
         BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
         SRI. SANAL P. RAJ,


     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.05.2022,   THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 3413 OF 2022
                                  2



                 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                  --------------------------------
                    B.A.No.3413 of 2022
                   -------------------------------
             Dated this the 6th day of May, 2022


                          ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of

Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Petitioners are accused Nos. 3 to 5 in Crime

No.134 of 2022 of Walayar Police Station. The above

case is registered against the petitioners alleging

offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341,

363, 324, 308, 395 and 506(ii) read with Section 149

IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that on 07.04.2022 at

7.30 p.m., accused Nos. 1 to 8 formed themselves into

an unlawful assembly, in prosecution of their common

object, armed with deadly weapons and forcibly took BAIL APPL. NO. 3413 OF 2022

the de facto complainant in a car from the surroundings

of a company by name Theertham Polystuff at

Kanjikode. It is alleged that the de facto complainant

was taken to various places and beat him with

dangerous weapons and criminally intimidated him.

Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the

offence.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public

Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioners submitted

that the petitioners have not committed any offence.

The counsel submitted that petitioners are accused

Nos. 3 to 5 and there is no serious allegation against

the petitioners. The counsel also submitted that the

petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this

Court grant them bail. The counsel also submitted that

the 2nd accused is also released on bail as evident from

Annexure 4. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed

the bail application. The Public Prosecutor takes me BAIL APPL. NO. 3413 OF 2022

through Annexure 1 FIR, in which serious allegations

are raised against the petitioners. It is true that the

allegation against the petitioners are very serious. I

perused the First Information Report produced as

Annexure 1. The 2nd accused was released on medical

ground. That is not a ground to release the petitioners.

But the petitioners are in custody from 22.04.2022.

Considering the serious nature of the allegations, there

can be a direction to the petitioners not to enter the

jurisdictional limit of Walayar Police Station for a period

of 60 days or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

With such a condition, I think the bail application can be

allowed.

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, BAIL APPL. NO. 3413 OF 2022

observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail

remains the same in as much as the grant of bail is 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. Petitioners shall be released on bail on

executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties

each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the

jurisdictional Court.

2. The petitioner shall appear before the

Investigating Officer for interrogation as and

when required. The petitioners shall co-

operate with the investigation and shall not,

directly or indirectly make any inducement, BAIL APPL. NO. 3413 OF 2022

threat or promise to any person acquainted

with the facts of the case so as to dissuade

them from disclosing such facts to the Court

or to any police officer.

3. Petitioners shall not leave India

without permission of the jurisdictional

Court.

4. Petitioners shall not commit an

offence similar to the offence of which they

are accused, or suspected, of the

commission of which they are suspected.

5. The petitioners shall not enter the

jurisdictional limit of Walayar Police Station

for a period of 60 days or till final report is

filed, whichever is earlier. The petitioners

shall furnish the phone number and details

of the place where they are going to reside

during the above period to the Jurisdictional BAIL APPL. NO. 3413 OF 2022

Court and to the Investigating Officer.

6. If any of the above conditions are

violated by the petitioners, 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

jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if

there is any violation of the above

conditions.

sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE hmh