Rahul S vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 5916 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
     WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
                      BAIL APPL. NO. 3455 OF 2023
            CRIME NO.439/2023 OF EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

             RAHUL S,
             AGED 30 YEARS
             S/O SATHEESAN,MUKALUVILA VADAKKATHIL, THEKKEMURI, EAST
             KALLADA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691502

             BY ADVS.
             M.T.SURESHKUMAR
             MANJUSHA K
             SREELAKSHMI SABU



RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

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

             BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR



OTHER PRESENT:

             SMT.MAYA.M.N, PP




     THIS    BAIL   APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
24.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No.3455 of 2023

                                      2



                 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
             ---------------------
                   B.A.No.3455 of 2023
          ---------------------------
            Dated this the 24th day of May, 2023

                                 ORDER

The bail application is filed under Section 438 of

Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)

2. The petitioner is the 10 th accused in Crime

No.439/2023 of East Kallada Police Station. The above case

is registered against the petitioner alleging offences

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 294(b), 323, 324, 332,

353 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The offence under Section 3(2)

(e) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,

1984 is also added.

3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner and

other accused formed themselves in unlawful assembly and

obstructed a ganamela program and when the Police

interfered, they obstructed the official duty of the Police

officers. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the

offences. It is also alleged that the petitioner committed

damage to a wireless set of the Police.

B.A.No.3455 of 2023

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Public Prosecutor Smt.Maya M.N.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated

the contentions in the bail application. The counsel also

submits that there is an interim order passed by this Court

directing the Police not to arrest the petitioner and that

order is in force even now. The learned counsel submits that

the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court

grant him bail. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the

bail application. But, the Public Prosecutor submits that this

Court is granting bail, stringent conditions may be imposed.

6. After hearing both sides, I think the custodial

interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary in the

facts and circumstances of the case. The investigation of

the case is almost over. Moreover, from the date of filing of

this bail application, there is an order not to arrest the

petitioner. The petitioner can be directed to appear before

the investigating officer, so that the investigation can be

completed immediately. Since there is an allegation that the

petitioner committed damage to public property, the

petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.2500/- before the B.A.No.3455 of 2023

jurisdictional court. Such a condition can be imposed in the

light of the several decisions of this court.

7. 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.

8. Considering the dictum laid down in the above

decision and considering the facts and circumstances of

these case, the bail application is allowed with the following

directions:

1. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within three weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation;

2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction B.A.No.3455 of 2023

of the officer concerned;

3. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

4. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court;

5. 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;

6. Petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.2,500/- before the jurisdictional court within two weeks and produce the receipt before the investigating officer at the time of surrender.

7. 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.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

JUDGE

bng