Kerala High Court
Anujith@ Sreekuttan 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. 3150 OF 2024
CRIME NO.394/2024 OF THALAYOLAPARAMBU POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
ANUJITH @ SREEKUTTAN
AGED 21 YEARS, S/O REJIMON,
PARAYANTHARAYIL HOUSE, EDAVATTOM P.O, THALAYOLAPARABU,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 605.
BY ADVS.
LEEJOY MATHEW.V.
SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA
RAKESH LEO
ABY GEORGE
SIMSAR UL HAQ K.Y
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682 031.
BY ADV. SRI PRASANTH M P (PP)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.3150 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3150 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
2. Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.394 of 2024
of Thalayolaparambu Police Station, Kottayam District. The
above case is registered against the petitioner and others
alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323,
363, 365 & 368 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that, a verbal tussle happened
between the petitioner and the de facto complainant in a
cinema theater and due to the said enmity, the petitioner
along with the other three accused followed the de facto
complainant on 05-04-2024 at about 9.30 P.M, and accused
nos. 1 and 2 shouted at the de facto complainant with
obscene words and made him mentally helpless. It is also
alleged that accused nos.3 and 4 beaten the de facto
complainant with their hands over his head and they together
took him in a bike of the accused nos.1 and 2, and hide the
de facto complainant in chunkam area saying that the
de facto complainant will be released only if his friends or
family members come to the said place.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner submitted that even if the entire allegations are
accepted, no offence under Section 363 IPC is made out. It is
also submitted that the common friends of the de facto
complainant and the petitioner want to settle the issue
between them, and the de facto complainant himself came
along with accused nos.3 and 4 to the place of the petitioner
to settle the matter with each other. Hence, there is no
offence made out. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
Bail application.
5. After hearing both sides, I think the bail
application can be allowed on stringent conditions. I do not
want to make any observation about the merit of the case.
The petitioner is aged only 21 years. There is no criminal
antecedence alleged against the petitioner. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, I think this bail
application can be allowed on stringent conditions. There can
be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the
investigating officer twice in a week till final report is filed.
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, this Bail Application is allowed with the following
directions:
i. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer
within ten days from today and shall undergo
interrogation;
ii. 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;
iii. 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 him from disclosing such facts to
the Court or to any police officer;
iv. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the
jurisdictional Court;
v. 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;
vi. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating
officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 10.00 AM till final
report is filed.
vii. 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].
viii. 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
ats
