Aneesh V vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 11219 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 11219 Ker
Judgement Date : 19 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Aneesh V 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. 2625 OF 2024
    CRIME NO.0626/2024 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONER:

            ANEESH V
            AGED 37 YEARS
            USHES PERUMKULAM,KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA
            TALUK,KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691560

            BY ADV M.R.SASITH



RESPONDENT:

            STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
            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.2625 of 2024
                            2


                  P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
              ---------------------
                   B.A.No.2625 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 petitioner is an accused in Crime No.626/2024

of Kottarakkara Police Station. The above case is registered

against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 283, 332 and 353 r/w Section 149 IPC .

3. The prosecution case is that accused persons along

with other 8 identifiable persons formed themselves into an

unlawful assembly with an intention to obstruct the official

duties of officers on duty and deliberately caused

obstructions. It is alleged that when the disturbance was

started in connection with the festival in Sri Bhadrakali

Temple in Perumkulam, the defacto complainant and others

tried to pacify a conflict. But, it is alleged that the 1 st accused

picked up a stone and struck and attacked the de-facto

complainant, which is resulted to sustain injury on the left

forehead. It is also alleged that another accused hit on the

defacto complainant on back. Hence, it is alleged that the

accused 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 accused nos.1 to 4 were arrested and recovery is also

effected. It is also submitted that no specific overt act is

attributed to the petitioner. The counsel submitted that the

petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant

him bail. The offence under Section 353 IPC is not made out

is the submission of the petitioner. The Public Prosecutor

opposes the bail application.

6. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application

can be allowed on stringent conditions. Accused nos.1 to 4

were arrested. It is submitted that the recovery is also

effected. In such circumstances, the petitioner can be

released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. The

petitioner can be directed to appear before the investigating

officer twice in a week till final report is filed

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) 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;