Kerala High Court
Bibin.V.B 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. 2077 OF 2024
CRIME NO.224/2024 OF Kodakara Police Station, Thrissur
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
BIBIN.V.B,
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O V.J. BABY, VALARIYIL HOUSE, RANDUKAI,
VARAMKUZHY, CHAIPPANKUZHY, KUTTICHIRA, THRISSUR.,
PIN - 680724
BY ADV RAJESH CHAKYAT
RESPONDENTS/STATE & IO:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KODAKARA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -
680684
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.2077 of 2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
B.A.No.2077 of 2024
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of of April, 2024
O R D E R
Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime
No.224/2024 of Kodakara Police Station. The above
case is registered alleging offences punishable
under Section 5(a) of the Explosive Substance Act.
2. It is alleged that on getting information
that someone is using unauthorised explosives for
blasing the rock inside a well owned by one
Rajani, W/o.Shibu, the police party conducted a
search and seized the explosive substance from the
accused Nos.2 to 4. It is alleged that these
explosives were used without any authorisation and
thus the accused committed the offence.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is not involved in
this case. He is a contractor by profession and he
agreed for conducting the work for deepening and
cleaning the well of the aforesaid Rajani.
According to the petitioner, since he did not used
to do these types of works, he subcontracted the
above work to the 2nd accused, who was doing these
works for the last 15 years. The petitioner
produced Annexure A2 written agreement between the
petitioner and the 2nd accused. According to the
petitioner, he was informed by the 2 nd accused that
he is having all the licences and other required
clearances for doing such work. Hence the work was
allotted to him, is the submission. It is also
submitted that the petitioner has not committed
any offence.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously
opposed the bail application. The learned Public
Prosecutor submits that the petitioner committed
the offence and the allegations are very serious.
The learned Public Prosecutor also produced the
instruction received by him along with a Memo.
6. This Court considered the contention of the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
Admittedly, the petitioner was not present at the
time of seizing the explosive substance. According
to the petitioner, he subcontracted the work to
the 2nd accused as per Annexure A2 written
agreement and he is not involved in this case. The
admissibility of this Annexure A2 is to be
investigated by the Investigating Officer. I do
not want to make any observation about the same.
But considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I think that this bail application can be
allowed on stringent conditions.
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:
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 for the like sum each 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 an accused,
or suspected, of the commission of which he is
suspected;
vi. 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.
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].
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
sp/19/04/2024
