Kerala High Court
Binuraj T.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. 3186 OF 2024
CRIME NO.245/2024 OF RANNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
BINURAJ T.R
AGED 43 YEARS
THUNDIYIL HOUSE, RANNI STORE ROOM PADI, PATHANAMTHITTA,
KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 679323
BY ADV ARUN ASHOK
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT&DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER RANNY
RANNY POLICE STATION, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA,KERALA,
INDIA, 689672, REPRESENTED BY THROUGH THE PUBLLIC
PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ATH ERNAKULAM, PIN, PIN
- 682031
3 KURIAN JOSEPH
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O V J JOSEPH, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, STORE ROOM PADI,
KAKKUDUMON P.O, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN -
689711
BY ADV NEENA JAMES
SRI.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.3186 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
---------------------
B.A.No.3186 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.245/2024
of Ranni Police Station. The above case is registered against
the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections
294(b), 323, 308, 427, 511 and 436 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused used filthy
language and assaulted the victim and after criminally
intimidating the victim.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the entire disputes between the petitioner and the victim
are settled and the petitioner already filed Crl.MC
No.3400/2024 before this Court to quash the proceedings.
The petitioner also produced a copy of the memorandum of
criminal miscellaneous case filed before this Court as
Annexure III. Annexure II is the affidavit filed by the defacto
complainant, in which he submitted that the matter is settled.
The Public Prosecutor submitted that non compoundable
offences are there and the settlement cannot be accepted.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and also considering the fact that the matter is settled
between the parties and the petitioner already approached
this Court for quashing the proceedings, I think the bail can
be granted to the petitioner 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) 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) 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).
vii) 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
bng
