Kerala High Court
Siva 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. 3203 OF 2024
CRIME NO.296/2024 OF THENMALA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:
1 SIVA
AGED 29 YEARS, S/O C SASI,
SETHU BHAVAN, MALAVEDAR COLONY, URUKKUNU P.O,
EDAMONE VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 307.
2 SIVA SHARUN
AGED 27 YEARS, S/O V SASI,
SIVANILAYATHIL HOUSE, MALAVEDAR COLONY, URUKKUNU P.O,
EDAMONE VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 307.
3 SUBEESH
AGED 23 YEARS, S/O SUREESH,
SUBI BHAVAN, MALAVEDAR COLONY, URUKKUNU P.O,
EDAMONE VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 307.
BY ADVS.
VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN
B.ANUSREE
ABHILASH C.V.
VARUN JACOB
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682 031.
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.3203/2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
----------------------------------------
B.A.No.3203 of 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal
Procedure Code.
2. The petitioners are accused in Crime No.296/2024 of
Thenmala Police Station, Kollam district. The above case is
registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b),
323, 324, 307 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 01-04-2024, at about
3.00 P.M, due to the prior vengeance with the defacto
complainant's father-in-law, the accused persons uttered obscene
words and physically assaulted them.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public
Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the incident did not happen as alleged by the prosecution. It
is submitted that it was the defacto complainant's father-in-law,
who tried to attack the accused person using a knife. It is
submitted that he inflicted injury on the chest of the 1 st accused
using a knife. It is submitted that petitioners 2 and 3 were the
only witnesses to the incident who came to rescue the 1 st
petitioner. It is submitted that the defacto complainant was the
aggressor. Apprehending that a case will be registered against
the defacto complainant, the present false case is filed is the
contention of the petitioners. Annexure-AII is the complaint
submitted by the petitioners before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-I, Punalur. Annexure-AIII is the certificate of
examination by the medical officer as far as the 1 st petitioner is
concerned. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the
bail application and submitted that the petitioners are not
entitled to bail and they committed serious offences.
5. This Court considered the contention of the petitioners
and the learned Public Prosecutor. The petitioners are in custody
from 01-04-2024 onwards. There are two version of the same
incident. According to the petitioners, the defacto complainant
was the aggressor. According to the defacto complainant,
petitioners are the aggressors. The petitioners produced
Annexure-III to prove that the 1 st petitioner sustained injury on
his left side of chest. I do not want to make any observation
about the same. The petitioners are in custody from 01-04-2024
on wards. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I
think this bail application can be allowed directing 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 be released on bail on executing a bond for
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two
solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of
the jurisdictional Court.
ii. The 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.
iii. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the
jurisdictional Court.
iv. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the
commission of which he is suspected.
v. The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer
on all Mondays and Fridays at 10.00 AM till final report is
filed.
vi. 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
ats
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3203/2024
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES
Annexure-I TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 296/2024
OF THENMALA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM RURAL
Annexure-II TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE
1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
JUDICIAL FIST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,
PUNALUR.
Annexure-III TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF EXAMINATION
BY A MEDICAL OFFICER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
DATED 03.04.2024 ISSUED BY TALUK
HEADQUARTERS HOSPITAL, PUNALUR.
