Kerala High Court
Niyas 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. 2796 OF 2024
CRIME NO.356/2024 OF SOORANADU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 NIYAS,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O NASARUDEEN, PLAVILA KEEZHAKKATTIL, ERAVICHIRA
NADUVIL, SOORANAD SOUTH VILLAGE, PATHARAM P.O., KOLLAM,
PIN - 690522
2 NOUFAL.N,
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O NIZARKUTTY, THUNDIL VEEDU, ERAVICHIRA NADUVIL,
SOORANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, PATHARAM P.O., KOLLAM, PIN -
690522
BY ADVS.
K.S.ARUN KUMAR
AMRUTHA K P
AMRUTHA P S
AMRUTHA P.S.
VIJAY SANKAR V.H.
ELDHO BABY
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
PP SRI PRASANTH M P
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.2796 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
---------------------
B.A.No.2796 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. The petitioners are the accused in Crime
No.356/2024 of Sooranadu Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioners and others alleging
offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 326,
506 r/w Section 34 IPC .
3. The prosecution case is that, on 16.03.2024 the
defacto complainant's sister met with an accident. Then the
defacto complainant along with his brothers came to the
place where the accident was occurred. Suddenly the 1 st
accused attacked the defacto complainant's elder brother. He
beat on the nose of the defacto complainant's elder brother
and he sustained fracture on the nose. Then the 2 nd accused
beat on the head of the defacto complainant's elder brother
and thereafter, all the accused persons pushed down him.
Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that petitioners are accused nos.5 and 6. There is no specific
overt act to the petitioners. The petitioners are ready to
abide any conditions, if this Court grant them bail. The Public
Prosecutor opposes the bail application. But, the Public
Prosecutor submitted that the overt act is attributed to the 1 st
and 2nd accused.
6. This court considered the conditions of the
petitioners and Public Prosecutor.
7. After hearing both sides, I think this bail can be
allowed on stringent conditions. The petitioners shall appear
before the investigating officer on all Mondays at 10.00 am
till final report is filed. With that condition, this bail
application can be allowed 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.
9. Considering the dictum laid down in the above
decision and considering the facts and circumstances of
these case, the 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 them 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) The petitioners shall appear before the
investigating officer on all Mondays at 10.00 am til 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
bng
