Kerala High Court
Mahesh 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. 3038 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1836/2023 OF PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONERS/2nd ACCUSED:
1 MAHESH
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O VILASINI YAKSHIKKAVU VILLA KURUMANDAL B PARAVOOR
KOLLAM, PIN - 691301
2 SYAM LAL
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O SYAMALA YAKSHIKKAVU THEKKATHIL KOCHU VEEDU
KURUMANDAL B PARAVUR KOLLAM, PIN - 691301
3 SYAMKUMAR
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O SYAMALA YAKSHIKKAVU THEKKATHIL VEEDU KURUMANDAL B
PARAVUR KOLLAM, PIN - 691301
BY ADV K.PREMKRISHNA NAIR
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
SRI.PRASHANTH M.P, 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.3038 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,J.
---------------------
B.A.No.3038 of 2024
---------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This bail application is filed under Section 439 of
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
2. The petitioners are the accused nos.2 to 4 in Crime
No.1836/2023 of Paravoor Police Station, Kollam District. The
above case is registered against the petitioners and other
accused alleging offences punishable under Sections 341,
323, 324, 294(b), 354, 308 r/w Section 34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 06.12.2023 at
about 8.30 pm, the petitioners along with their friend had
inflicted bodily injuries to the defacto complainants after
showering with abusive languages. It is further alleged that
the petitioners herein with the aid of their friend had inflicted
bodily injuries by the help of stones and iron rod carried by
them. It is also alleged that the petitioners herein with the aid
of iron rod tried to hit the second defacto complainant as a
result of which he got injuries to the left side of the forehead.
It is also alleged that the petitioners and their friends had
tried to outrage the modesty of relatives of the defacto
complainant. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed
the offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
1st petitioner was arrested on 29.03.2024 and the 2nd and 3rd
petitioners were arrested on 11.03.2024. The petitioners are
innocent and they are ready to abide any conditions if this
Court grant bail to them is the submission. The Public
Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submitted that
offence alleged against the petitioners are very serious.
6. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application
can be allowed on stringent conditions considering the length
of incarceration of the petitioners. Indefinite incarceration of
the petitioners are not necessary. The petitioners can be
directed to appear before the investigating officer for the
purpose of investigation.
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 this
case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following
directions:
1. Petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a
bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each
with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
2. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating
Officer for interrogation as and when required. The
petitioners 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. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of
the jurisdictional Court.
4. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the
commission of which they are suspected.
5. The petitioners 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
petitioners, 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
