Kerala High Court
Midhun Mukundan 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. 2421 OF 2024
CRIME NO.181/2024 OF North Paravur Police Station,
Ernakulam
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:
1 MIDHUN MUKUNDAN
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O MUKUNDAN,EDATHARA (H),
NANDHYATTUKUNNAM, NORTH PARAVUR,
PIN - 683513
2 NANDAKUMAR.P.U
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O UNNI.K.B,PUKKATPARAMBU (H),
THONIYAKAVU, NORTH PARAVUR,
PIN - 683513
3 VISHNU.T.K.,
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O KRISHNAN, THEKKE COLONY,
VALLUVALLY, KOONAMMAVU,
NORTH PARAVUR,
PIN - 683513
4 AKHIL.N.P.
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O PRADEEP,NAMBOORIPARAMBIL (H),
KAITHARAM, NORTH PARAVUR,
PIN - 683513
5 VISHNU.K.M.
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O MOHANAN,KALATHIPARAMBU (H),
KAITHARAM, NORTH PARAVUR,
PIN - 683513
BY ADV M.VIVEK
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
B.A.No.2421 of 2024
2
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT
OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
PRASUN.S
N.A.RETHEESH
SMT.SEENA C., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.2421 of 2024
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.2421 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. Petitioners are the accused in Crime
No.181/2024 of North Paravur Police Station. The
above case is registered alleging offences punishable
under Sections 143, 144, 147, 323, 341, 324,
294(b), 307, 506 r/w 149 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that, there is a
criminal case pending against the accused persons
for assaulting the brother of the defacto
complainant. The accused persons demanded to
withdraw that case. But, that was no considered. On
account of this enmity, on 20.02.24 at about 1:00
p.m, the accused persons formed themselves into
an unlawful assembly and to prosecute the common
object of that unlawful assembly, reached near
Thonniakavu temple. The first accused fisted one
Mr.Akhil. He also beat one Mr.Suneesh on his head
using the iron pipe. On seeing this, the defacto
complainant intervened to save him. The first
accused beat him using the very same iron pipe.
Third and fourth accused fisted him on several parts
of his body and kicked him. One of his friends
helped the defacto complainant to stand up and he
was also assaulted by beating on his head by first
and second accused persons. Third accused beat
one Mr.Abhilash using iron rod. One Mr.Nishad was
pushed down by the accused persons and he was
also assaulted by fisting and kicking. The brother of
the defacto complainant reached to take them to the
hospital and 3rd accused waved knife against him
and he sustained injuries and thereby the accused
committed the afore said offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. It is submitted that there is case and counter
case and in the connected case (B.A.No.2413/2024),
this Court already granted bail. In this case also,
the matter is settled and an affidavit is filed by the
victims. But the offence under Section 307 is
involved and therefore, this Court can not accept the
affidavit. But considering the fact that there is case
and counter case, the bail can be granted.
Therefore, this Bail application can be allowed after
imposing stringent conditions.
6. 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.
7. 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:
1. Petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer within ten days from today and
shall undergo interrogation;
2. 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;
3. 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;
4. Petitioners shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court;
5. 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;
6. 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].
7. 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
DM
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2421/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE -A TRUE COPY OF THE HON'BLE SESSIONS
COURT, ERNAKULAM IN CRL.M.C.NO: 684
OF 2024 DATED 15-03-2024
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
