Kerala High Court
Akash @ Unnikuttan 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. 3155 OF 2024
CRIME NO.0394/2024 OF THALAYOLAPARAMBU POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
AKASH @ UNNIKUTTAN
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O RAJU THANTHODATHIL, EDAVATTOM P.O KOTTYAM, PIN -
686605
BY ADVS.
LEEJOY MATHEW.V.
SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA
RAKESH LEO
ABY GEORGE
SIMSAR UL HAQ K.Y
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
PP SMT SEENA C
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.3155 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
---------------------
B.A.No.3155 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. Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.394 of
2024 of Thalayolaparambu Police Station, Kottayam
District. The above case is registered against the
petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under
Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 363, 365 & 368 r/w Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that, a verbal tussle
happened between the petitioner and the de facto
complainant in a cinema theater and due to the said
enmity, the petitioner along with the other three accused
followed the de facto complainant on 05-04-2024 at about
9.30 P.M, and accused nos. 1 and 2 shouted at the de facto
complainant with obscene words and made him mentally
helpless. It is also alleged that accused nos.3 and 4 beaten
the de facto complainant with their hands over his head
and they together took him in a bike of the accused nos.1
and 2, and hide the de facto complainant in chunkam area
saying that the de facto complainant will be released only if
his friends or family members come to the said place.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner submitted that even if the entire allegations are
accepted, no offence under Section 363 IPC is made out. It
is also submitted that the common friends of the de facto
complainant and the petitioner want to settle the issue
between them, and the de facto complainant himself came
along with accused nos.3 and 4 to the place of the
petitioner to settle the matter with each other. Hence,
there is no offence made out. The learned Public
Prosecutor opposed the Bail application.
5. After hearing both sides, I think the bail
application can be allowed on stringent conditions. I do not
want to make any observation about the merit of the case.
The petitioner is aged only 21 years. There is no criminal
antecedence alleged against the petitioner. Considering
the facts and circumstances of the 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 twice in a week till final report is filed.
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:
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. The petitioner shall appear before the
investigating officer on all Mondays and Fridays
at 10.00 AM till final report is filed.
vii. 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].
viii. 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
sp
