Kerala High Court
Aneesh M S 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. 3105 OF 2024
CRIME NO.334/2024 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2024 IN CRMC NO.185 OF 2024 OF
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 3:
1 ANEESH M S
AGED 32 YEARS, S/O SHAJI M K,
MULLACKAL, ELAPPALLY PO, ARAKKULAM, IDUKKI,
PIN - 685 589.
2 AKHIL RAJU
AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. RAJU P A,
PORIYATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MOOLAMATTOM, PIN - 685 589.
BY ADVS.
B.SURJITH
RAHANA JOSE
LIJO JOSEPH
AKSHAYA REGHU
ARUN JOSE THOMAS
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682 031.
BY ADV.SEENA C. (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.3105 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3105 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. Petitioners are accused in Crime No.334 of 2024
of Thodupuzha Police Station, Idukki district. The above
case is registered alleging offences punishable under
Sections 354A(1), 354A(1)(iv), 294(b), 509, 354, 323,
324, 308, 506(i) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 23-02-2024 at
05.15 PM, the petitioners along with others, in
furtherance of their common intention attacked the
de facto complainant inside the Kaifan Hotel at
Mangattukavala. It is alleged that the 1 st petitioner hit
the body of the de facto complainant when questioned by
her and the 2nd accused used sexually flavoured words. It
is also alleged that the accused pushed the de facto
complainant and thereby, outraged her modesty. Hence,
it is alleged that the accused committed the offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that there was a tug-of-war competition in which the
de facto complainant's team also participated. It is
submitted that the team coached by the de facto
complainant could not defeat petitioners' friend's team.
It is submitted that there was some wordy quarrel in the
spirit of the game. It is submitted that the injured has
not sustained any serious injury. It is contended that the
petitioners are ready to abide by any condition, if this
Court grant them bail. The learned Public Prosecutor
opposed the Bail application.
6. After hearing both sides, I think this bail
application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The
non-bailable offences alleged are under Sections 354 and
308 IPC. Whether the above offences are attracted in the
facts and circumstances of the case is a matter to be
investigated. I am of the considered opinion that the
custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary
in the facts and circumstances of the case. Stringent
conditions can be imposed while granting bail.
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. Petitioners 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 petitioners, they shall be
released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of
Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with
two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the officer concerned;
iii. 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;
iv. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission
of the jurisdictional Court;
v. 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;
vi.Petitioners 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 petitioners even
while the petitioners are 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
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
ats
