Kerala High Court
Babu P. Chacko 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. 2961 OF 2024
CRIME NO.141/2024 OF CHERUPUZHA POLICE STATION, Kannur
PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED:
BABU P. CHACKO,
AGED 42 YEARS
PULUVELIL, KOLAYAD, MANAGING DIRECTOR, ROX
AGGREGATES PRIVATE LIMITED,
CHOORAPPADAVU - 670 511.
BY ADVS.
GOVIND G. NAIR
M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)
BEJOY JOSEPH P.J.
BALU TOM
BONNY BENNY
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.2961 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.2961 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 the 1st 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 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 have confirmed that they are explosive substances
and seized the same. Hence the case was registered.
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. 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. One
of the accused is already released on bail by this Court.
The petitioner can be directed to appear before the
Investigating officer once in a week till final report is
filed. Custodial interrogation is not necessary in the
facts and circumstances of this case.
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. 2961/2024
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 FIRST
ACCUSED.
ANNEXURE A3 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 A4 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 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
