Kerala High Court
Ajesh M.R 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. 3187 OF 2024
CRIME NO.605/2023 OF VAGAMON POLICE STATION, Idukki
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 03.04.2024 IN CRMC NO.242 OF 2024
OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 15:
1 AJESH M.R
AGED 38 YEARS
MK RAVEENDRAN, MISHANPAAMBIL HOUSE, ELAPPARA TOWN
BHAGAM ELAPPARA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685501
2 AFSAL MUHAMMED
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O KANNINKKUTTY, PUTHEN VEETIL HOUSE, VAGAMON TOWN
BHAGAM, VAGAMON, VAGAMON VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN
- 685503
3 VINCENT
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O GOPALAN,14TH MURI LAYAM, HELIBRIYA ESTATE, ELAPPARA
VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685501
4 ALEX RAJENDRAN
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O RAJENDRAN, RAJESH BHAVAN, VATTAPPATHAL BHAGAM,
VAGAMON KARA, VAGAMON VILLAGE. IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN -
685503
5 KANNAN.S
AGED 44 YEARS
S S/O SHANMUHHAYYA, PUTHUSSERIYIL HOUSE, KAITHAPPANAL
BHAGAM, VAGAMON KARA, VAGAMON VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
PIN - 685503
6 JYOTHIS
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O CHANDRAN, BONAMIPUTHUVELIL, FAIRFIELD KARA,
ELAPPARA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685501
7 EBIN BABY
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O. BABY,KANIYAMNADAKKAL HOUSE, NEAR ULUPPOONI
B.A.No.3187 of 2024
2
ST.ALPHONSA CHURCH , IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685501
8 SAMSON E.S
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O SAJI, ELLUVILAYIL HOUSE, KAITHAPPANAL BHAGAM,
ELAPPARA VILLAGE , IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685501
9 BIJU @ VINOD
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O VASUDEVAN, KALAPPURACKAL HOUSE VAGAMON TOWN
BHAGAM, VAGAMON VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN -
685503
10 SUMESH S
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O SURESH, KALLUMEDU HOUSE, PUTHULAYAM BHAGAM,
VAGAMON VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685503
11 MANEESH P.S
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O SEKHAR, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, NARAKAKUZHI
BHAGAM, KOTTAMALA KARA ,VAGAMON VILLAGE, IDUKKI
DISTRICT, PIN - 685503
12 ANILKUMAR
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O SUKUMARAN, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKE
CHEMMANNU BHAGAM, KOCHUKARUNTHARUVI P.O, ELAPPARA
VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685501
13 JESBIN FRANCIS
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O FRANCIS, KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, VATTAPPATHAL
BHAGAM, KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, VAGAMON VILLAGE,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685503
14 RAMACHANDRAN
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O KUNJUPILLA, RAJANI BHAVAN, PULLIKKANAM BHAGAM,
VAGAMON, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685503
15 PRADEEP RAJ
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O RASSAL RAJ, MELAVIL HOUSE, RESIDING AT 14TH
MURI LAYAM HELIBIRIYA ESTATE, ELAPPARA VILLAGE ,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685501
B.A.No.3187 of 2024
3
BY ADVS.
N.K.SHYJU
GIREESH PANKAJAKSHAN
VISHNU MOHAN
SAHLA NECHIYIL
ATHIRA PADMENDHU
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
SMT.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.3187 of 2024
4
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
---------------------
B.A.No.3187 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.605/2023 of Vagamon Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioners and others alleging
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b),
324, 308 r/w Section 149 IPC .
3. The prosecution case is that, on 15.10.2023 at 3.00
pm, while the election of Board of Directors of Malanadu
Service Co-operative Bank held at Vagamon Government
Higher Secondary School, the defacto complainant and his
friends were working as UDF booth agents. At that time, the
petitioners, who are the workers of LDF formed themselves
into an unlawful assembly and pelted stone towards the UDF
workers and sustained injury on the back of the head, lower
lip and right side ear of the defacto complainant. 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 the incident is not happened as alleged by the
prosecution. The counsel submitted that no serious injuries
sustained to the injured. The Public Prosecutor opposes the
bail application.
6. After hearing both sides, I think this bail can be
allowed on stringent conditions. The incident happened in
connection with a Co-operative Society election. According to
the petitioners, the incident is not happened as alleged by
the prosecution and it was in attack from UDF against LDF.
The prosecution case is that it is an assault from LDF towards
UDF. I do not want to make any observations about the same.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think
the bail can be granted to the petitioners 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
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) 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).
vii) 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
