Kerala High Court
Dhanush 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. 2828 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1597/2023 OF FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 15.03.2024 IN CP NO.5 OF
2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/1st ACCUSED:
DHANUSH,
AGED 19 YEARS
S/O SURESH, FLAT NO.63,
TC.39/1550, KARUMADAM COLONY, CHALA,
MANACAUD P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009
BY ADVS.
SREEJITH S. NAIR
V.S.THOSHIN
SATHEESH MOHANAN
AKHIL SUSEENDRAN
SEKHAR G. THAMPI
VISHNU V.H.
SUNIL.V.
MAHIMA
NANDU PRAKASH J.S.
ABHISHEK NAIR M.R.
RESPONDENT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
N.P.ASHA
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.2828/2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,J.
---------------------
B.A.No. 2828 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 the 1st accused in Crime
No.1597/2023 of Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
District. The above case is registered against the petitioner
alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147,
148, 326, 307, 341, 294(b), 323, 324 302 r/w 149 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that on 21/11/2023 at
about 5.30 p.m., near Karimadhom colony turf, the accused,
eight in number, formed themselves into an unlawful
assembly armed with dangerous weapons and attacked one
Arshad, Al-Ammen and the defacto complainant and
murdered Arshad. It is alleged that, when the 3 rd accused
caught hold of both the hands of Arshad and exhorted to kill
him, the 1st accused stabbed him on his chest, causing a
deep injury, resulting in his death. Then, the 2 nd accused
hacked Al-Ameen, using a chopper, causing injuries on his
hand and accused Nos.4 and 5 fisted him and stamped him.
When the defacto complainant intervened, the 3 rd accused hit
him on his head using a piece of concrete block and he fell
down. It is also alleged that accused Nos.6 to 8 stabbed him.
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 learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is in custody from 22/11/2023 onwards.
The investigation of the case is already over and the final
report also filed. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready to
abide any conditions if this Court grant bail to him. It is also
submitted that the petitioner is aged only 19 years. The
learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail
application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
petitioner has got criminal antecedents. It is also submitted
that the 1st accused inflicted the fatal injury which resulted in
the death of the deceased.
6. This Court considered the contention of the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is an admitted
fact that the petitioner is in custody from 22/11/2023
onwards. The petitioner is aged 19 years. The deceased died
mainly because of the single stab inflicted by the petitioner
on his chest. The other accused are already released on bail.
The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner
has got criminal antecedents and he is involved in a case, in
which the offence under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act. But it is admitted that the
above case is registered long back. Simply because the
petitioner is involved in another case, the bail application
cannot be denied. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were already granted
bail. Accused Nos.4 to 8 are juveniles and they are also
released to their parents. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, I think this 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 they are accused, or suspected, of the
commission of which they are suspected.
5. 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
APA
