Niyas vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5130 Ker

BAIL APPL. NO. 3212 OF 2022                         1



                 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. 3212 OF 2022
      CRIME NO.260/2022 OF Kilikolloor Police Station, Kollam
PETITIONER/S:

               NIYAS
               AGED 35 YEARS,S/O MUHAMMED KUNJU
               NIYAS MANZIL
               NEAR CHATHINAMKULAM CHURCH
               CHATHINAMKULAM CHERRY
               PANAYAM VILLAGE
               KOLLAM TALUK,
               KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691601

               BY ADVS.
               C.RAJENDRAN
               B.N.HASKAR


RESPONDENT/S:

               STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
               HIGH COURT OF KERALA
               ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

               BY SRI.SANAL P. RAJ, PP


       THIS     BAIL    APPLICATION     HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
06.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 3212 OF 2022                  2




                          P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                       ===================
                           B.A.No. 3212 of 2022
                       -------------------------------
                    Dated this the 6th day of May, 2022


                                ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of

Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Petitioner is the 5th accused in Crime No.260

of 2022 of Kilikolloor Police Station. The above case is

registered against the petitioner and other accused alleging

offences punishable under Secs. 143, 146, 147, 148, 452,

323, 294(b) and 307 r/w 34 IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner

and others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly

with dangerous weapons in prosecution of their common

object to do away with the defacto complainant, trespassed

into the house of the defacto complainant on 19.3.2022 at

23 hours. It is alleged that the accused inflicted multiple cut

injuries on the defacto complainant using sword. The wife of

the defacto complainant was also assaulted when she tried

to prevent her husband from being attacked.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the

Public Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner was arrested on 24.3.2022 and he is in

custody from that date onwards. The counsel for the

petitioner submitted that there is no criminal antecedents to

the petitioner. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is

ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The

Public Prosecutor submitted that the 1st accused in the case

involved in 24 crimes and the 6 th accused in the case

involved in 8 crimes. The Public Prosecutor submitted that

the petitioner has got close acquaintance with the 1 st and 6th

accused. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner

is very serious. But the petitioner is in custody from

24.3.2022. It is clear from the statement of the Public

Prosecutor that there is no criminal antecedents reported

against the petitioner. Considering the facts and

circumstances of this case, I think the bail application can

be allowed on stringent conditions.

6. 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 the rule and refusal is the exception so

as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of

securing fair trial.

7. 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. Petitioner shall appear before

the Investigating Officer for interrogation as

and when required. The petitioner shall co-

operate with the investigation and 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

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. The petitioner shall appear

before the investigating officer on all

Mondays and Fridays at 10 a.m., till final

report is filed.

                          6.          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

jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if

there is any violation of the above

conditions.

SD/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE SKS