Kerala High Court
Midhun 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. 2988 OF 2024
CRIME NO.336/2024 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONER:
MIDHUN
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O MANOHARAN, PEDIKAPARAMBIL, VETTUVENI,
KARTHIKAPPALLY , ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN -
690514
BY ADV S.SAMEER
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION, KUNDAYAM ROAD,
PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 689695
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.2988 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
---------------------
B.A.No.2988 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.336/2024
of Pathanapuram Police Station. The above case is registered
against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under
Sections 294(b), 451, 427, 354 r/w Section 34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 16/03/2024,
around 04.00 p.m., the petitioner, who had earlier performed
interior work at the defacto complainant's house, trespassed
into the house of the defacto complainant and used abusive
language towards the defacto complainant and her mother. It
is also stated that the accused assaulted the defacto
complainant and went in to the kitchen and moved the fitted
cupboards from there and took them in his vehicle and
thereby causing a loss of Rs.50,000/-. 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 the petitioner completed the interior works in the house
of the defacto complainant. A huge amount is due to the
petitioner as balance remuneration from the defacto
complainant. The same is not paid. Hence, it was a wordy
quarrel and no incident as alleged is happened. The Public
Prosecutor opposes the bail application.
6. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application
can be allowed on stringent conditions. According to the
petitioner, in connection with the interior work done in the
house of the defacto complainant, some amount is due to
him and he only demanded that amount. The non bailable
offence alleged in this case is under Section 354 IPC. Whether
the ingredients of Section 354 IPC is there, is a matter to be
investigated by the investigating officer. 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 petitioner after imposing 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
