Kerala High Court
Abdul Rahim 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. 3051 OF 2024
CRIME NO.16/2024 OF EDAKKAD POLICE STATION, KANNUR
CRMC NO.528 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
ABDUL RAHIM
AGED 31 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED KOYA,
PATTARAYATH HOUSE, MAVILAYI (PO), NEAR KARUNAN PEEDIKA,
KANNUR., PIN - 670 622.
BY ADV M.H.HANIS
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682 031.
BY ADV. C SEENA (PP)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.3051/2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
----------------------------------------
B.A.No.3051 of 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal
Procedure Code.
2. The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No. 16/2024
of Edakkad Police Station. The above case is registered alleging
offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(ii), 307, 332,
465, 468, 471 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, Section 4 r/w Section
25(1-B) of the Arms Act and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act.
3. The prosecution case is that on 08-01-2024, at
midnight, while the de facto complainant and party were
conducting night patrolling in a Jeep and when they reached at
Pothuvachery, the accused Nos.1 to 4, who came in a Car bearing
a fake registration, had uttered obscene words, threatened and
brandished a sword against them and attempted to murder them
and caused hurt to a constable. The accused caused damage to
the tune of Rs.4,000/- to the Jeep, which is a public property.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is in custody from 13.01.2024 onwards. It is
also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any condition,
if this Court grant him bail. The learned Public Prosecutor
opposed the bail application and submitted that the offences
alleged against the petitioner are very serious.
5. This Court considered the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The
petitioner is in custody from 13-01-2024 onwards. I think
indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary. It is
true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. But
that alone is not a reason to reject the bail application, because
the petitioner is in custody for about 90 days. The investigation
of the case is almost over. Therefore, 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:
i. 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.
ii. 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.
iii. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the
jurisdictional Court.
iv. 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.
v. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer
on all Mondays till final report is filed.
vi. 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
ats
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3051/2024
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN
SESSIONS JUDGE, THALASSERY AS CRL.MC.NO.
528/2024 WAS DISMISSED BY ORDER DATED
23.03.2024.
