Kerala High Court
Binu.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. 2976 OF 2024
CRIME NO.144/2024 OF PERAVOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
BINU.V
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O SANTHOSH, POIKAYIL HOUSE, ADAKKATHODE, KELAKAM P.O
KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670674
BY ADVS.
P.S.BINU
K.SEENA
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
PP; PRASANTH M P
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.2976 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
---------------------
B.A.No.2976 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. The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime
No.144/2024 of Peravoor Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences
punishable under Sections 457, 380 & 411 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that in between 22.00
hours on 29.02.2024 and 09.00 hours on 05.03, the 1st
accused trespassed to the building where the defacto
complainant is working as Site Supervisor and committed
theft of construction materials worth Rs.1,93,632/-. The case
against the petitioner, who is a 2 nd accused is that he
dishonestly received the above articles with the knowledge
that they are stolen articles etc.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged.
The counsel submitted that he is a scrap purchaser and he
cannot identify whether the property sold to him is a theft
article or not. The petitioner submitted that he is ready to
abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The Public
Prosecutor opposes the bail application.
6. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application
can be allowed on stringent conditions. The allegation against
the petitioner is that he received stolen articles with
knowledge. According to the petitioner, he is a scrap
purchaser. The stolen articles are construction materials.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think
bail can be granted to the petitioner. But, I make it clear that
this order is not applicable to the the 1 st accused, who
according to the prosecution committed the theft. His bail
applicable will be considered separately based on the merit.
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.
8. Considering the dictum laid down in the above
decision and considering the facts and circumstances of
these case, the bail application is allowed with the following
directions: :-
i) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo
interrogation;
ii) After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer
proposes to arrest the petitioner, she 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;
iii) 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 her from disclosing
such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
iv) Petitioner shall not leave India without permission
of the jurisdictional Court;
v) Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to
the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the
commission of which they are suspected;
vi) 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).
vii) 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
bng
