Kerala High Court
Rahul K J 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. 3021 OF 2024
CRIME NO.453/2024 OF Sasthamcotta Police Station, Kollam
PETITIONER/S:
RAHUL K J
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O JAYADEVAN, KANNASSERIL, IVERKKALA EAST P.O,
IVERKALA, KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691507
BY ADVS.
ARSHID.M.S.
K.N.RAJANI
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
SMT.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.3021 of 2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
B.A. No. 3021 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 an accused in Crime No.453/2024 of
Sasthamcotta Police Station is arrayed as 4 th accused in the
above case. The offences alleged are under Secs 143, 147, 148,
341, 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 506 r/w 149 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 17.03.2024 around
10.30 pm, the accused jointly attacked the defacto complainant
and his friend with helmet, stick and grass sheer and caused
grievous hurt. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed
the offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is the 4th accused and there is no specific overtact
against the petitioner. It is submitted that even according to
the prosecution, the petitioner has not used any weapon and he
attacked using his hand. It is also submitted that the petitioner
is a Government employee and he has no criminal antecedents.
The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. This Court perused the
allegation against the petitioner. A perusal of Annexure-1 FIR
would show that the allegation against the petitioner is only to
the effect that he used his hand to assault the victim. No
criminal antecedents is seen alleged before the Sessions Judge
when the Bail Application was considered. Considering the
facts and circumstances of this case, I think this bail
application can be allowed.
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
