Adithyan vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 11229 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 11229 Ker
Judgement Date : 19 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Adithyan 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. 3145 OF 2024
     CRIME NO.325/2024 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

            ADITHYAN
            AGED 18 YEARS, S/O BINU,
            VALAYILVEEDU, VALIYAPADAM, WEST KALLADA,
            KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690 521.


            BY ADVS.
                 K.M.FIROZ
                 DIPU JAMES
                 M.SHAJNA
                 P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ


RESPONDENTS/STATE:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
            PIN - 682 031.


    2       STATION HOUSE OFFICER
            SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
            PIN - 690 521.

            BY ADV. 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.3145 of 2024
                                  2



               P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                --------------------------------
                    B.A.No.3145 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.325 of

2024 of Sasthamcotta Police Station, Kollam District.

The above case is registered against the petitioner and

others alleging offences punishable under Sections

294(b), 323 and 354 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code.

3. The prosecution case is that, on 21-02-2024 at

about 7.45 P.M, while the de facto complainant girl was

watching the temple festival of Vettiyathode Temple at

Vettiyilmukku along with her brother, accused Nos.1 and

2 harassed her. When the brother of the de facto

complainant questioned it, accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulted

him. When the de facto complainant tried to intervene,

the 1st accused slapped on her face and uttered obscene

words. 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, even if the entire allegations are accepted,

the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is

not made out. It is submitted that when there is an

allegation of commission of Section 323 IPC, the offence

under Section 354 IPC would not be attracted. The

learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Bail application.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the

learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public

Prosecutor. The only non-bailable offence alleged against

the petitioner is under Section 354 IPC. Whether the

offence under Section 354 of IPC is attracted in the facts

and circumstances of the case is a matter to be

investigated. I do not want to make any observation

about the same. But, considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, I think bail can be granted

after imposing stringent conditions. The petitioner can be

directed 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.

8. 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 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.