Kerala High Court
Nikhilraj R 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. 3440 OF 2024
CRIME NO.0394/2024 OF THALAYOLAPARAMBU POLICE STATION,
Kottayam
PETITIONERS/ACCUSEDS:
1 NIKHILRAJ R
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O RAJESH KOCHUPURAKKAL, EDAVATTOM P.O KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686605
2 RAHULRAJ R
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O RAJESH KOCHUPURAKKAL, EDAVATTOM P.O KOTTAYAM -
686605, PIN - 686605
BY ADVS.
LEEJOY MATHEW.V.
SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
SRI.PRASANT MP, 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.3440 of 2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
B.A.No.3440 of 2024
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of of April, 2024
O R D E R
This Bail Application is filed under Section
438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
2. Petitioners are two among the accused in
Crime No.394 of 2024 of Thalayolaparambu Police
Station, Kottayam District. The above case is
registered against the petitioners 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 petitioners and the de
facto complainant in a cinema theater and due to
the said enmity, the petitioners along with the
other 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
petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners are
aged only 22 and 25 years, respectively. There is
no criminal antecedence alleged against them.
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 petitioners 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. Petitioners 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 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 each to the satisfaction of the officer
concerned;
iii. 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 him from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any police officer;
iv. Petitioners shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court;
v. 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;
vi. The petitioners 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 petitioners even while the petitioners are
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 petitioners, 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/19/04/2024
