Kerala High Court
Kamal Kumar T vs The 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. 3192 OF 2024
CRIME NO.321/2024 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:
KAMAL KUMAR T,
AGED 33 YEARS,
S/O THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT USHUS,
CHENTHAPUR,
THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, DECENT JUNCTION P.O.,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
BY ADVS.
R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
M.KIRANLAL
MANU RAMACHANDRAN
T.S.SARATH
SAMEER M NAIR
SAILAKSHMI MENON
JOTHISHA K.A.
RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
SRI.M.P.PRASANTH
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 3192 OF 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3192 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 sole accused in Crime No.321/2024 of
Kottiyam Police Station. The above case is registered against the
petitioner alleging offence punishable under Sections 452, 323,
324, 294(b), 354, 326 and 427 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 14.03.2024 at about 12.00
a.m, accused criminally trespassed into the residence of the defacto
complainant situated near Melathilkkavu Temple in
Thrikkovilvattom Village armed with a dangerous weapon and beat
the grandson of the defacto complainant and he sustained fracture
of his little finger. When the defacto complainant intervened
accused assaulted her uttering obscene words and tore off her
nighty. It is submitted that the accused attacked the husband of the
defacto complainant also. Hence, it is alleged that the accused
BAIL APPL. NO. 3192 OF 2024
committed the offences.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the incident is
not happened as alleged by the prosecution. The counsel also
submitted that a simple scuffle happened outside the premises of
the house is exaggerated by the defacto complainant. It is also
submitted that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are
neighbours and there is a dispute in connection with the usage of a
common pathway. It is also submitted that multiple times there
have been aggravative and provocative actions from the defacto
complainant. The petitioner submitted that complaint before the
Police for which no action was taken. Thereafter, this false case is
registered is the submission. The learned Public Prosecutor
opposed the bail application.
6. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and
the Public Prosecutor. The non bailable offences registered are
under Section 354 and 326 of IPC. The petitioner and the defacto
complainant are neighbours. According to the petitioner, there is a
pathway dispute, I do not want to make any observations.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think that
bail can be granted to the petitioner on condition that the
BAIL APPL. NO. 3192 OF 2024
petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of Kottiyam Police
Station for a period of 60 days or till the final report is filed. With
the above condition bail can be granted.
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. 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 petitioners, 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
BAIL APPL. NO. 3192 OF 2024
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).
8. The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limit
of Kottiyam Police Station for a period of 60 days or till
the final report is filed in Crime No.321/2024. The
petitioner shall give his address where he is going to
BAIL APPL. NO. 3192 OF 2024
reside during the above period at the time of surrender to
the investigating officer along with his phone number. I
make it clear that, the petitioner can enter the
jurisdictional limit for the purpose of investigation, when
the investigating officer demands. Any other relaxation of
the above condition can be made by the jurisdictional
court, if there is sufficient reason.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
msp
