Kerala High Court
Prijith Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 16 April, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 27TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3065 OF 2024
CRIME NO.396/2024 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:
1 RATHEESH
AGED 34 YEARS
MODIYUZHATHIL HOUSE, ERUMAKKADU P.O., VALLANA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689532
2 VAISAKH P R
AGED 27 YEARS
PERUMASSERIL, ERUMAKADU P.O., VALLANA, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT., PIN - 689532
BY ADVS.
K.V.ANIL KUMAR
SWAPNA VIJAYAN
MOHANAN M.K.
RADHIKA S.ANIL
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA,ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ARANMULA POLICE STATION, ARANMULA (PO)., PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT., PIN - 689533
OTHER PRESENT:
PP; SEENA C
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2024, ALONG WITH B.A.NO.2999/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.3065 and 2999 of 2024
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 27TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2999 OF 2024
CRIME NO.396/2024 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 PRIJITH RAJAN
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O RAJAN, PRIYA BHAVAN, ERUMAKKADU PO.,
EDAYARANMULA, KIDAGANNUR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY
TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689532
2 ANISH V SOMAN
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O SOMAN, VALLIKKALAYIL, ERUMAKKADU PO.,
KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, KIDAGANNUR VILLAGE, VALLANA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689532
BY ADVS.
AJITH MURALI
SWAPNA VIJAYAN
MOHANAN M.K.
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ARANMULA POLICE STATION, ARANMULA (PO).,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689533
OTHER PRESENT:
PP SEENA C
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2024, ALONG WITH B.A.NO.3065/2024, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.3065 and 2999 of 2024
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
---------------------
B.A.Nos.3065 and 2999 of 2024
---------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2024
ORDER
These bail applications are filed under Section 438 of
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
2. Petitioners in these bail applications are accused in
the same crime and therefore, I am disposing of this crime by
a common order.
3. The petitioners are the accused in Crime
No.396/2024 of Aranmula Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioners alleging offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294(b), 427 IPC.
Subsequently, the offence under Section 354 IPC is also
added is the submission.
4. The prosecution case is that, on 28.03.2024 at
11.pm, when the de-facto complainant and his troop were
performing Ganamela at Vallana SNDP Brach No.74, the
accused persons wrongfully restrained and verbally abused
them and attacked the de-facto complainant. Further, it is
submitted that the accused persons also attacked the friend
B.A.Nos.3065 and 2999 of 2024
of the de-facto complainant and smashed the key board and
thereby suffered loss. Hence, it is submitted that the accused
committed the offence.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the offence under Section 354 IPC is not made out in
these cases. It is also submitted that the incident is not
happened as alleged by the prosecution. It is also submitted
that petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court
grant them bail. The Public Prosecutor opposes the bail
applications.
7. After hearing both sides, I think these bail
applications can be allowed on stringent conditions. Whether
the offence under Section 354 IPC is made out or not is a
matter to be decided at the stage of concluding the
investigation and also at the stage of trial. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioners
can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.
8. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that, the
bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble
B.A.Nos.3065 and 2999 of 2024
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.
9. 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: :-
i) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating
Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo
interrogation;
ii) After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer
proposes to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released
on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent
sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the
officer concerned;
iii) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating
Officer for interrogation as and when required. The
B.A.Nos.3065 and 2999 of 2024
petitioners 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;
iv) Petitioners shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court;
v) 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;
vi) Needless to mention, it would be well within the
powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the
matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the
information, if any given by the petitioners even while
the petitioners are on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v.State (NCT of
Delhi) and another (2020 (1) KHC 663).
vii) 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.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
bng
