Kerala High Court
Sreenivasan V. 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. 3231 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 10.02.2024 IN CR NO.213 OF
2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KUNNAMKULAM
PETITIONER/S:
SREENIVASAN V. V.
AGED 34 YEARS
SON OF SIVAN, EMPLOYEE, BAJAJ AUTO FINANCE LIMITED,
VELUTHEDATH HOUSE, VALAPPIL, MADIRASSERI,
THRIKUNNAPURAM, TAVANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN
- 679573
BY ADVS.
ASWINI SANKAR R.S.
K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
S.M.PRASANTH
SHEHIN S.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR
DISTRICT., PIN - 680503
OTHER PRESENT:
PP SEENA C
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No. 3231 of 2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
B.A. No. 3231 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. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 213/2024
of Kunnamkulam Police Station. The above case is registered
alleging offences punishable under Secs. 379 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused committed
theft of an autorickshaw.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is a financier and he repossessed the vehicle when
there is default in payment. The same will not attract the
offence under Sec. 379 IPC is the submission. The Public
Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
6. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application
can be allowed on stringent conditions. According to the
petitioner, he is the financier and there is default in repaying
the amount and hence, the vehicle was seized as per the loan
agreement. I do not want to make any observation about the
same. But considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary
and the bail can be granted.
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
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. 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.
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]
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
