Dibin C vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 11118 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 11118 Ker
Judgement Date : 16 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Dibin C 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. 2969 OF 2024
 CRIME NO.141/2024 OF CHERUPUZHA POLICE STATION, Kannur
PETITIONER(S):

         DIBIN C,
         AGED 32 YEARS
         S/O.DASAN, MALIVACHAL HOUSE, MUNDERI AMSOM,
         EACHUR DESOM, KANNUR, PIN - 670591
         BY ADV K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN


RESPONDENT(S):

         STATE OF KERALA,
         REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
         KERALA, PIN - 682031
         BY ADV.
         SMT.C. SEENA, 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.2969 of 2024
                                  2




               P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
            --------------------------------
                  B.A.No.2969 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.141/2024

of Cherupuzha Police Station, Kannur District. The

above case is registered alleging offences punishable

under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

3. The prosecution case is that, on 18.02.2024 at

08.30 P.M., S.I of Police, Cherupuzha and party while on

patrolling duty had seen large quantity of explosive

substances such as gelatin sticks, detonators etc. in the

compound of Majitha Stone Crusher at Choorappadavu,

Vayakkara. After examination of the article by the

bomb squad, they confirmed that they are explosive

substances and seized the same. Hence the case was

registered. The petitioner was implicated subsequently

stating that he executed an agreement with the original

owner who has got license.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even

if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is

made out against the petitioner who is subsequently

implicated as an accused. 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. The

petitioner can be directed to appear before the

Investigating officer once in a week till final report is

filed.

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. Petitioner shall appear before the

Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10 A.M. till final

report is filed.

7. 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].

8. 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. 2969/2024

PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.141/2024 OF CHERUPUZHA POLICE STATION DATED 19.02.2024.

ANNEXURE A2 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED NIL FILED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERUPUZHA POLICE STATION IMPLICATING THE PETITIONER AS 2ND ACCUSED.

ANNEXURE A3 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT MADE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERUPUZHA POLICE STATION IN THE REGISTER OF THE COMPANY BEARING THE LICENSE NUMBER K/KL/KNR/LE3/15E(103508).

ANNEXURE A4           PHOTOSTAT  COPY   OF    THE   COMPLAINT
                      RECEIVED   UNDER     THE    RIGHT    TO

INFORMATION ACT GIVEN BY THE SUNITHA K.P. TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 24.03.2023 ANNEXURE A5 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY IN CRL.MC.536/2024 DATED 02.04.2024. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE