Kerala High Court
Gopesh 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. 3047 OF 2024
CRIME NO.94/2024 OF MALA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 01.04.2024 IN CRMP NO.2928 OF
2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, CHALAKUDY
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
GOPESH
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O GOKULAN, ANTHIKKATT HOUSE, KOMBATHUKADAVU DESOM,
PUTHENCHIRA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680682
BY ADVS.
K.I.SAGEER
MUHAMMED YASIL
RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MALA POLICE STATION, MALA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680732
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SEENA C.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 3047 OF 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3047 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2024
ORDER
The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.94 of 2024 of
Mala Police Station, Thrissur District. The above case is registered
alleging offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 420 r/w
Section 34 of IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and his mother
suppressing the earlier marriage of the petitioner, married the
defacto complainant on 02.12.2021. They lived together till
15.06.2023 as husband and wife. The petitioner misappropriated
Rs.21,00,000/- belonging to the defacto complainant and thereby
cheated her.
3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the
allegations are accepted, the offence is not attracted. It is also
submitted that one of the accused is already released on bail. The
BAIL APPL. NO. 3047 OF 2024
Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
5. After hearing both sides and also considering the fact that
the petitioner is in custody from 01.04.2024, I think this bail
application can be allowed on stringent conditions. It is also a fact
that one of the accused is released on anticipatory bail, by this
Court as per Annexure-A2 order. Therefore, I think this bail
application can be allowed on stringent conditions.
6. 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.
7. 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 be released on bail on executing a bond
for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two
solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of
the jurisdictional Court.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3047 OF 2024
2. The 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.
3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of
the jurisdictional Court.
4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the
commission of which he is suspected.
5. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating
officer on all Mondays till final report is filed.
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.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
msp
BAIL APPL. NO. 3047 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3047/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2024 IN
CRL.M.P NO. 2928 OF 2024 OF THE COURT OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, CHALAKKUDY
Annexure-A2 A TRUE ORDER DATED 21.03.2024 IN NO.1664 OF
2024 AND THIS HON'BLE COURT
