Kerala High Court
Rineesh 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. 3104 OF 2024
CRIME NO.103/2024 OF PERINGOME POLICE STATION, KANNUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
RINEESH
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O RAVINATHAN,
KANDOTH HOUSE, PAYYANUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.,
PIN - 670 307.
BY ADVS.
M.ANUROOP
M.DEVESH
MURSHID ALI M.
ABRAHAM RAJU CYRIAC
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682 031.
BY ADV.PRASANTH M P (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.3104 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3104 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.103/2024 of
Peringome Police Station, Kannur District. The above case is
registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 448,
341, 323 & 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 13-02-2024 at 9.00
PM, accused Nos.1 and 2 trespassed into the varanda of the
rented house occupied by the de facto complainant and
wrongly restrained her. It is alleged that the 1 st accused beat
her with hands and accused Nos.1 and 2 pulled her by
catching on her neck. It is stated that the accused outraged
her modesty by tearing the maxi worn by her. Hence, it is
alleged that accused had committed the offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the de facto complainant's husband is a KSRTC driver, and an
amount of Rs.50,000/- is due to the petitioner from him. It is
submitted that when the petitioner demanded the amount
back, the husband of the de facto complainant abused the
petitioner in filthy language and also beat him with a wooden
log. It is also submitted that the petitioner sustained deep
abrasions on the right foot and he was hospitalized; but no
case was registered against the husband of the de facto
complainant. It is contended that the petitioner filed a
private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Payyanur, against the husband of the de facto
complainant. At this stage, a false case is registered against
the petitioner is the submission. The learned Public
Prosecutor opposed the Bail application.
6. The only non-bailable offence alleged in this case is
Section 354 IPC. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
whether Section 354 IPC is made out is a matter of
investigation. I do not want to make any observation about
the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail after
imposing stringent conditions. The petitioner can be directed
to appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays till
final report is filed. With the above condition, the bail can be
granted to the petitioner.
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 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 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.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
ats
