Kerala High Court
Abhijith 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. 3233 OF 2024
CRIME NO.264/2024 OF KARINKUNNAM POLICE STATION, IDUKKI
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS: 1 TO 6:
1 ABHIJITH, AGED 27 YEARS
S/O SURESH, POOVELITHAZHE HOUSE, MADUKKAKUNNU P.O,
ELIKULAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686577
2 JUSTIN, AGED 26 YEARS
S/O GLADIES, MULLACKALLSSERY HOUSE, , MADUKKAKUNNU
P.O, ELIKULAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686577
3 BASTINE, AGED 27 YEARS
S/O GLADIES, MULLACKALLSSERY HOUSE, MADUKKAKUNNU
P.O, ELIKULAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686577
4 JASMIN TINU, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O LATE TINU
THANKACHAN, INCHANANICKAL HOUSE, PURAPPUZHA P.O,
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685583
5 GLADIES, AGED 54 YEARS
S/O AYYAPPAN, MULLACKALLSSERY HOUSE, MADUKKAKUNNU
P.O, ELIKULAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686577
6 THANKACHAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O AUGUSTINE,
INCHANANICKAL HOUSE, PURAPUZHA P.O, KARIMKUNNAM,
THDOUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685583
BY ADV. SOJAN MICHEAL
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV. SMT.SEENA C, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.3233 of 2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
B.A. No. 3233 of 2024
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime
No.264/2024 of Karimkunnam Police Station. The
above case is registered alleging offences punishable
under Sections 144, 148, 427, 294(b), 323, 324, 447,
451, 506(ii), 354 r/w 149 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioners
and two other unknown persons in prosecution of their
common object formed themselves into an unlawful
assembly, on 23.03.2024 at about 5.30 P.M., it is
alleged that they criminally trespassed into the house
of the defacto complainant with deadly weapons and
uttering obscene words. Further it is stated that the 1 st
accused attacked the defacto complainant with a knife
and the defacto complainant tried to stop him and got
injured his fingers. The 2nd accused attacked him with
an iron rod, caused injury to his left eye, 3rd accused
broke the window glass and damaged the car and gate
of the defacto complainant, 4th accused abused him in
filthy language, 5th accused threatened to kill him and
accused Nos.3, 5 to 8 are also assaulted the defacto
complainant and his mother. Hence it is alleged that
the accused committed the aforesaid offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the only non bailable offence is under Section 354
IPC. Even if the entire allegations are accepted, no
offence under Section 354 IPC is made out, is the case.
The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the Bail
application.
6. After hearing both sides, I think this Bail
application can be allowed on stringent conditions.
Whether the offence under Section 354 IPC is attracted
in the facts and circumstances of the case is a matter
to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. For
that purpose, the custodial interrogation of the
petitioners may not be necessary. After imposing
stringent conditions, this Bail application can be
allowed.
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.
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 appear before the
Investigating Officer within ten days from today and
shall undergo interrogation;
2. 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;
3. Petitioners 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, 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. Petitioners shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court;
5. 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;
6. The petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 10
A.M. till final report is filed.
7. 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.
8. 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].
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
DM
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3233/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.04.2024
IN CRL.M.C NO: 255/2024 OF THE
SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
