Mahesh vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 11254 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 11254 Ker
Judgement Date : 19 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Mahesh 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. 3185 OF 2024


      CRIME NO.254/2024 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.03.2024 IN CRMP NO.2361 OF
     2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,IRINJALAKUDA
                    ...............................
PETITIONER:

          MAHESH, AGED 35 YEARS
          SON OF MURALI, KOSSERY HOUSE,
          ALATHUR DESOM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 741.
          BY ADVS.
          JITHIN BABU A
          ARUN SAMUEL


RESPONDENT:

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


          PP SEENA C


THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.04.2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 3185 OF 2024

                                                 2




                            P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                            ..........................................
                              B.A.No.3185 of 2024
                        .............................................
               Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024


                                          ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.254/2024

of Kodakara Police Station. The above case is registered

against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under

Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 506, and 308 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that, due to the

animosity that the de facto complainant did not buy

alcohol for the accused persons, on 18.03.2024 at 12.30

p.m., while the de facto complainant was consuming

liquor at Kallada bar, in furtherance of common intention BAIL APPL. NO. 3185 OF 2024

among all the accused, first accused used abusive

languages towards the de facto complainant, second

accused wrongfully restrained him by catching hold of his

shirt and beat on his chest with bare hands whereas

the first accused hit him on the left side of his face

with a metal bangle. When the de facto complainant

fell down, the third accused threatened to kill him and

kicked him several times. When the de facto

complainant tried to escape, the first accused hit the de

facto complainant on his head with a beer bottle which

was evaded by him with his hand, otherwise it would

have resulted in his death. Hence, it is alleged that the

accused committed the offences. The petitioner was

arrested on 19.03.2024.

4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public

Prosecutor.

BAIL APPL. NO. 3185 OF 2024

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is in custody from 19.03.2024 onwards. It is

also submitted that the non bailable offence alleged

against the petitioner is under Section 308 of IPC. It is

the case of the petitioner that even if the entire

allegations are accepted, the offence under Section 308

of IPC is not made out. According to the petitioner, the

incident is not happened as alleged by the prosecution

and actually the de facto complainant was the aggressor.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application and submitted that the allegations against the

petitioner is serious in nature.

7. This Court considered the contentions of the learned

counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public

Prosecutor. The petitioner is in custody from 19.03.2024

onwards. Whether the offence under Section 308 of BAIL APPL. NO. 3185 OF 2024

IPC is made out or not is a matter to be decided at

the conclusion of the investigation and trial, if any.

There are two versions about the incident, which

version is correct is also to be decided at the time of

trial.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and

also considering the period of detention, I think the

petitioner can be released on bail after imposing

stringent conditions.

9. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3185 OF 2024

exception so as to ensure that the accused has the

opportunity of securing fair trial.

10. 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:This Bail Application is allowed with

the following directions:

i. Petitioner shall be released on bail on

executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for

the like sum to the satisfaction of the

jurisdictional Court.

ii.The 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.

Iii.Petitioner shall not leave India without BAIL APPL. NO. 3185 OF 2024

permission of the jurisdictional Court.

iv.Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar

to the offence of which they are accused, or

suspected, of the commission of which he is

suspected.