Kerala High Court
Akhil Kumar 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. 2932 OF 2024
CRIME NO.0449/2022 OF Thiruvalla Police Station,
Pathanamthitta
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
AKHIL KUMAR
AGED 26 YEARS
KALLAMPALLIL HOUSE, THUKALASSERY, THIRUVALLA P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA,, PIN - 689101
BY ADV M.R.SASITH
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
ADV. PRASANTH 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.2932 of 2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
B.A. No. 2932 of 2024
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal
Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.0449/2024 of
Thiruvalla Police Station. The above case is registered against
the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections
498A of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused legally married
the defacto complainant on 12.04.2021 and thereafter, the
accused subjected the complainant to physical and mental
harassment. When the same was questioned by the defacto
complainant, she was beaten by the accused. It is also alleged
that on 17.03.2024, at about 05.P.M, the accused compelled the
defacto complainant to participate in the sexual activity when
she was pregnant.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
marital relationship is inforce even now. The allegation against
the petitioner is not correct. The petitioner is ready to abide
any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The learned Public
Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
6. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application
can be allowed, because it is a matrimonial dispute. The
marital relationship can be restored at any stage.
7. In such circumstances, if the petitioner is sent to jail,
the situation will further worsen. In such circumstances, I think
bail can be granted to the petitioner.
8. 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
her 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
AP
