Kerala High Court
Kamarudheen K.N 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. 3177 OF 2024
CRIME NO.60/2024 OF MAYYIL POLICE STATION, KANNUR
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.03.2024 IN CRMC NO.537
OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY
PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED:
KAMARUDHEEN K.N.
AGED 28 YEARS
SON OF ABDULLA, BADARIYA MANZIL, PULLOOPPY,
KANNADIPARAMBA POST,
KANNUR DISTRICT 670604, PIN - 670604
BY ADV P.K.RAVISANKAR
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
PP SMT SEENA C
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.3177 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
B.A. No. 3177 of 2024
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal
Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
2. The petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime No.
60/2024 of Mayyil Police Station, Kannur District. The above
case is registered alleging offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 427 and 308 r/w
149 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that on 16/1/2024 at 11.30
pm, when the defacto complainant and his brother going
back home in a car, the accused wrongfully restrained,
dragged them from the car and assaulted with wooden
reaper and iron stick and caused grievous hurt. The defacto
complainant sustained fracture of the left leg and thereby
the accused committed the offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that there is no overt act attributed against the 4 th accused.
The main allegation is against the other accused. The
learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not
committed the offence. There is no criminal antecedents
against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the other
accused were already released on bail.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence
alleged against the petitioner are very serious and also
submitted that the other accused were arrested and granted
bail and therefore the petitioner has to surrender before the
investigating officer.
7. This Court considered the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public
Prosecutor. The main accused were already arrested and
released on bail. Petitioner is the 4 th accused. There is no
criminal antecedents reported against the petitioner. The
main overt acts is attributed to the other accused.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think
the petitioner can be released on bail on stringent
conditions.
8. 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. 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]
7. 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
APA
