Kerala High Court
Nazar Valiyil 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. 2191 OF 2024
CRIME NO.177/2024 OF Koyilandy Police Station, Kozhikode
PETITIONER/S:
NAZAR VALIYIL,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, CHOLA HOUSE, MOODADI (POST),
KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE (DIST)., PIN - 673307
BY ADV K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR)
RESPONDENT/S:
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.2191 of 2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
B.A. No. 2191 of 2024
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal
Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 177/2024 of
Koyilandy Police Station. The above case is registered against
the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Secs. 323,
354, 452 & 506 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 18.02.2024 at 5.30
am, when the defacto complainant was at home, she heard
voice of the accused from the road, in front of her house. When
she came outside, she saw the accused scolding her husband,
who was chatting with one Jalesh. So she requested her
husband to come inside the house. But, by that time, the
accused trespassed into the house abusing with filthy
language and assaulted the defacto complainant with hands
and thereby outraged her modesty. When her husband tried to
resist him, he pushed him into the cot and thus caused injuries
to him. 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 counsel for the petitioner submitted that the non-
bailable offences are under Secs. 354 and 452 IPC. The
ingredients of the same are not attracted in this case. It is
submitted that there is pathway dispute between the petitioner
and the defacto complainant. It is a false case foisted against
the petitioner. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application.
6. The non-bailable offences alleged are under Secs.
354 and 452 IPC. Whether the ingredients of the same are
attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case is a
matter of investigation. I do not want to make any observation
about the same. Admittedly, the petitioner and the defacto
complainant are neighbours. According to the petitioner, there
is a pathway dispute. Considering the facts and circumstances
of this case, I think this bail application can be allowed on
stringent conditions. There can be a direction to the petitioner
to appear before the investigating officer once 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.
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. Petitioner 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 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;
3. 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;
4. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of
the jurisdictional Court;
5 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;
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. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating
officer on all Mondays at 10.00 am, till the final report is filed.
8. 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
SKS
