Kiran.P vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 11216 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 11216 Ker
Judgement Date : 19 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Kiran.P 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. 2823 OF 2024
        CRIME NO.90/2024 OF CHAVARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

            KIRAN.P
            AGED 24 YEARS, S/O PEETHAMBARAN,
            UPPOOTTIL VARAMBEL NEENDAKARA MURI, KOLLAM,
            PIN - 691 582.


            BY ADV ANNIE JACOB


RESPONDENT/STATE:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
            PIN - 682 031.


    2       THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
            CHAVARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 590.


            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.2823 of 2024
                                  2



               P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                --------------------------------
                    B.A.No.2823 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 2nd accused in Crime No.90 of

2024 of Chavara Police Station, Kollam District. The

above case is registered alleging offences punishable

under Sections 294(b), 506, 324 & 308 r/w Section 34

IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that, on 11-01-2024 at

about 9.30 P.M, accused attacked the defacto

complainant and caused grievous injuries to him. As per

the prosecution case, the 2nd accused beat the defacto

complainant on his left hand and forehead with a

hammer; the 1st accused attacked him with a knife and

the 3rd accused criminally intimidated him uttering

obscene words.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any

condition, if this Court grant him bail. It is submitted that

the injured has not sustained any serious injury. The

Public Prosecutor opposed the Bail application.

6. It is true that the allegations against the

petitioner are serious. But considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion

that the petitioner, who is the 2nd accused, can be

released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.

There can be a direction to the petitioner to appear

before the investigating officer twice in a week. If the

petitioner commits any similar offence, the investigating

officer can approach the jurisdictional court for

cancellation of the bail and the court concern can pass

appropriate orders, even though this order is passed by

this Court.

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.

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.