Kerala High Court
Anvar vs State Of Kerala on 19 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
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 30TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2812 OF 2024
CRIME NO.493/2024 OF Aluva Police Station, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.03.2024 IN CMP NO.1306 OF
2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, ALUVA
PETITIONER/S:
RIYAS KHAN
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O MUHAMMED HANEEFA, RESIDING AT RIYAS MANZIL
HOUSE, KARUKONE, ANCHAL P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691306
BY ADVS.
R.N.SANDEEP
B.MUHAMMED SHAHEEL
KEERTHI VIJAYAN
JYOTHI R. NAIR
ARUVI P.S.
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
19.04.2024 ALONG WITH BA NO.2811/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. Nos. 2811 & 2812 of 2024 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 30TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2811 OF 2024
CRIME NO.493/2024 OF Aluva Police Station, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.03.2024 IN CMP NO.1307 OF
2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, ALUVA
PETITIONER/S:
ANVAR,
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O ABDUL SATHAR, RESIDING AT THENGUVILA VEEDU,
MANALAYAM, KAITODU P.O., NILAMEL, KOLLAM, PIN -
691535
BY ADVS.
R.N.SANDEEP
B.MUHAMMED SHAHEEL
KEERTHI VIJAYAN
JYOTHI R. NAIR
ARUVI P.S.
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
19.04.2024 ALONG WITH BA NO.2812/24, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. Nos. 2811 & 2812 of 2024 3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
B.A. Nos. 2811 & 2812 of 2024
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024
ORDER
These Bail Applications are filed under Section 439 of
Criminal Procedure Code .
2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime
No.493/2024 of Aluva East Police Station, Ernakulam. The
above case is registered alleging offence punishable under
Secs. 363, 364A, 120B, 212 r/w 34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 17.03.2024 at about
7.10 am, the accused persons with intention to kidnap the
victim, who is about 40 years old, came in an Innova Car and
committed kidnap of the said victim near KSRTC Bus stand,
Aluva. According to the prosecution, the 1 st and 2nd accused
who are in acquaintance with two persons, named Azhar
Sakhafi and Battery Navas, who were engaged in business
activities with two residents and in connection with the
business negotiation, intended to kidnap the victim. It is also
alleged that the 1st and 2nd accused conspired together with the
other accused and obtained above mentioned vehicle from one
Mr. Sureshkumar and handed over the same to said Battery
Navas. Battery Navas along with the other accused came with
the vehicle from Thiruvananthapuram and committed the
offences at Aluva and thereby committed the offences is the
allegation.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The petitioners were arrested on 18.03.2024. It is
true that the allegation against the petitioners is very serious.
The prosecutor opposed the bail application. But considering
the detention period, I think the bail application can be
allowed on stringent conditions. There can be a direction to the
petitioners to appear before the investigating officer once in a
week till final report is filed. With the above condition, the bail
can be granted.
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, these Bail Applications are allowed with the following
directions:
1. Petitioners 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.
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 at 10.00 am, 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
SKS
