Kerala High Court
Fasil.P.I 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. 2648 OF 2024
CRIME NO.218/2024 OF Munnar Police Station, Idukki
PETITIONER/S:
FASIL.P.I
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O IBRAHIM, PANACKAL, MULAVOOR.P.O, MUVATUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686673
BY ADVS.
T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
K.K.AKHIL
T. SREELAKSHMI UNNIKRISHNAN
DAKSHINA SARASWATHY
NANDU S KUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
PP; PRASANTH M P
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 16.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.2648 of 2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
B.A. No. 2648 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 an accused in Crime No. 218/2024
of Munnar Police Station. The above case is registered against
the petitioner and another alleging offences punishable under
Secs.7 r/w 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1995.
3. The prosecution case is that in the morning of
04.03.2024, the 2nd accused who is the owner cum drive of the
Mini lorry bearing No.KL-65M 1070 was found transporting 17
packets of wheat powder, 78 sacks of rice and 20 sacks of
wheat in his vehicle. The vehicle was intercepted by the police
near Mattupetty and the same was taken into custody,
suspecting them to be ration articles. It is alleged that these
articles were transported at the instance of the 2nd accused.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has not committed any offence and he is implicated
based on the confession statement of the 1 st accused. The 1st
accused is already arrested and released on bail. The Public
Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
6. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application
can be allowed on stringent conditions. The property is already
seized. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner
may not be necessary. The petitioner can be directed to co-
operate with the 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.
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
