Harikrishna Prasad.P.V vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 11116 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 11116 Ker
Judgement Date : 16 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Harikrishna Prasad.P.V 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. 2994 OF 2024
  CRIME NO.156/2024 OF CUMBUMMETTU POLICE STATION, IDUKKI
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

         HARIKRISHNA PRASAD.P.V
         AGED 28 YEARS
         SON OF VIKRAMAN NAIR, PUTHUPPARAMBIL HOUSE,
         BALAGRAM (P.O), PRAKASHGRAM KARA, IDUKKI
         DISTRICT, PIN - 685552
         BY ADV. NIREESH MATHEW


RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

         STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
         KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
         BY ADV.
         SRI.PRASHANTH M.P., 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.2994 of 2024
                              2



                 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
              --------------------------------
                    B.A.No.2994 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. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.156/2024 of

Cumbummettu Police Station, Idukki District. The above

case is registered originally under Sections 451, 341, 323,

294(b), and 427 of IPC. The offence under Sections 354

and 354B of IPC was added subsequently.

3. The prosecution case is that, due to the previous

animosity towards the defacto complainant, the accused

assaulted the victim after wrongfully confining him. It is

also alleged that the petitioner outraged the modesty of

the victim.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

offence under Sections 354 and 354B were added

subsequently and all other offences are bailable offences.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Bail

application.

6. After hearing both sides, I think this Bail

application can be allowed on stringent conditions.

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. Petitioner 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 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 each for

the like sum to the satisfaction 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 him 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. 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 petitioner even while the

petitioner is 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].

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 DM

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2994/2024

PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT IN CRIME NO. 156/2024 OF CUMBUMMETTU POLICE STATION DATED 28.02.2024 ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 156/2024 OF CUMBUMMETTU POLICE STATION DATED 28.02.2024 ANNEXURE 3 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE CASUALITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE TALUK HOSPITAL, NEDUMKANDAM DATED 27.02.2024 ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 04.03.2024 (WRONGLY MENTIONED THE DATE AS 04.02.2023 IN THE REPORT) SUBMITTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CUMBUMMETTU.

ANNEXURE 5 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 27.02.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE SISTER OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SHO, CUMBUMMETTU POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE 6        TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
                  27.02.2024
ANNEXURE 7        FREE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
                  COURT     OF    THE     SESSIONS     JUDGE,
                  THODUPUZHA     DATED      01.04.2024     IN

ANNEXURE 8        TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE OFFER LETTER
                  DATED    03.04.2024    RECEIVED    BY   THE

PETITIONER FROM EDU. FUTURE POINT CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITEDRESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE