Kerala High Court
Athira 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. 2485 OF 2024
CRIME NO.287/2024 OF Vellarada Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/S:
1 ATHIRA,
AGED 46 YEARS
D/O. SYAMALA,KIZHAKKINKARA VEEDU,
ADEEKKALAM,KOVILOOR, KUDAPPANAMOODU P.O.,VELLARADA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695505
2 AROMAL,
AGED 20 YEARS
S/O. SHYLAJA,KIZHAKKINKARA VEEDU,
ADEEKKALAM,KOVILOOR, KUDAPPANAMOODU P.O.,VELLARADA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695505
3 SHYLAJA,
AGED 53 YEARS
D/O. STELLAL,KIZHAKKINKARA VEEDU,
ADEEKKALAM,KOVILOOR, KUDAPPANAMOODU P.O.,VELLARADA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695505
4 SYAMALA,
AGED 64 YEARS
D/O. STELLAL,KIZHAKKINKARA VEEDU, ADEEKKALAM
KOVILOOR, KUDAPPANAMOODU P.O.,VELLARADA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695505
BY ADVS.
D.KISHORE
MEERA GOPINATH
R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)
RESPONDENT/S:
B.A. No.2485 of 2024 2
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE SATION HOUSE OFFICER,
VELLARADA POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695505
SMT.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.2485 of 2024 3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
B.A. No. 2485 of 2024
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal
Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 287/2024 of
Vellarada Police Station. The above case is registered against
the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Secs.
143,149 341, 294 (b), 323, 324 & 308 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 17.03.2024 at 3.50
pm, the accused Nos. 1 to 5 formed themselves into an
unlawful assembly, with common intention to commit murder of
the defacto complainant, intercepted the lorry of the defacto
complainant and assaulted him. When the bother of the defacto
complainant intervened, the 2nd accused hit him with an iron
rod and other accused jointly assaulted him and thus
committed the abovesaid offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
allegation against the petitioners are false. It is submitted that
this case is registered as a counter blast to Crime No.
286/2024, which is registered against the defacto complainant
and his brother. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are
ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant them bail. The
Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
6. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it is
clear that Crime No. 287/2024 and Crime No. 286/2024 are
connected. There is allegation and counter allegation about the
incident. Which version is correct is to be decided by the
investigating officer. Considering the facts and circumstances
of this 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 once in a week till
final report is filed.
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.
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. Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating
Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo
interrogation;
2. 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) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum
to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;
3. 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;
4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of
the jurisdictional Court;
5 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;
6. 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]
7. The petitioners shall appear before the investigating
officer on all Mondays at 10.00 am, till the final report is filed.
8. 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
SKS
