Kerala High Court
Sreekumar 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. 3172 OF 2024
CRIME NO.396/2024 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER:
SREEKUMAR
AGED 46 YEARS
S/.O. LEKSHMANAN NAIR, MELE CHEMBARA VEEDU,
DHANUVACHAPURAM, NADOORKOLLA, NEYYATTINKARA, PIN -
695503
BY ADVS.
G.SUDHEER
R.HARIKRISHNAN (H-308)
SMRITHI S.S.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
PP PRASANTH MP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.3172 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,J.
---------------------
B.A.No.3172 of 2024
---------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This bail application is filed under Section 439 of
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.396/2024
of Parassala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The above
case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences
punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(i), 326 and
308 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused
demanded the informant to leave the house due to the
suspicion of his wife i.e, the informant. It is also submitted
that because of the enmity towards the informant, on
23.03.2024 at 7.00 pm the accused uttered abusive words
against the informant and slapping on her cheek and
criminally intimidated her by saying that 'car will be set on
fire'. The following day, i.e., on 24.03.2024 at 4.00 am, the
accused attacked the informant with a stick on her head and
she evaded the attack of the accused and sustained injury on
her nose. Then the accused attacked and pushed her by the
hair and hitting her chest and stomach with the stick and she
sustained a rib fracture. Hence, it is alleged that the accused
committed the offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is in custody from 25.03.2024 onwards and the
petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant
him bail. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that
the petitioner has not committed the offence as alleged. The
Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. The Public
Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner committed serious
offence against the women and the injured sustained fracture
on her body.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the
allegation against the petitioner is very serious. The
petitioner inflicted fatal injury to his own wife. But, it is a fact
that the petitioner is in custody from 25.03.2024. The
incident happened in connection with the matrimonial
dispute between the petitioner and the informant. The
matrimonial relationship can be restored at any stage. The
continued detention of the petitioner will only aggravate
this situation. But, considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, there can be a direction to the petitioner not to
enter the jurisdiction limit of Parassala Police Station for a
period of 60 days or till final report is filed whichever is
earlier. With that condition, I think the bail application can be
allowed on stringent conditions.
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:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of
the jurisdictional Court.
4. 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.
5. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating
officer on all Mondays till final report is filed.
6. Petitioner shall not enter the jurisdiction limit of
Parassala Police Station for a period of 60 days or till
final report is filed whichever is earlier. But I make it
clear that the petitioner is free to enter the jurisdiction of
the Police limit, if there is a demand from the
investigating officer for the purpose of investigation and
to appear as ordered by this Court above. The petitioner
shall furnish the address where he is going to reside
during the above period to the investigating officer
within four days from the date of his release.
6. 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
bng
