Kerala High Court
Shyju M 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. 2196 OF 2024
CRIME NO.92/2024 OF NOORANADU POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1:
SHYJU M,
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.JAYAMANI, SHYJU BHAVANAM, KIDANGAYAM MURI,
PADANILAM P.O, NOORANADU VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA
TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690529
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.2196 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.2196 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.92/2024 of
Nooranadu Police Station, Alappuzha District. The above
case is registered alleging offences punishable under
Sections 294(b), 323, 341, 324, 506(1), 308 r/w 34 of
IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 19.01.2024 at
about 11 P.M., while the defacto complainant along with
his friends were dining in a restaurant, the defacto
complainant called the supplier in the hotel by saying
"Hello". Then the accused, who were dining in the
adjacent cabin teased the defacto complainant and when
he questioned the same, the first accused pushed the
defacto complainant forcefully and criminally intimidated
him. It is also submitted that the accused assaulted the
victim. Hence it is submitted that the accused committed
the above said offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only
non-bailable offence is under Section 308 IPC. The
counsel submitted that, even if the entire allegations are
accepted, the offence under Section 308 IPC is not
attracted. The learned 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 308 IPC is attracted in
the facts and circumstances of the case is a matter to be
investigated by the investigating officer and also at the stage
of trial, if any. Considering the facts and circumstances of
this case, 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. 2196/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED
22.02.2024 IN CRL.MP.NO.777/2024
PASSED BY THE SESSIONS COURT,
ALAPPUZHA.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
