Kerala High Court
Abdulla Kurikkal vs State Of Kerala on 19 April, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 2157 OF 2024 1
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. 2157 OF 2024
CRIME NO.135/2024 OF Melattur Police Station, Malappuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 07.03.2024 IN CRMC NO.243 OF
2024 OF DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI
PETITIONER/S:
1 ABDULLA KURIKKAL
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. IBRAHEEM, KURIKKAL HOUSE, KAPP SCHOOL PADI,
VETTATHUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679326
2 MUHAMMED JAFAR
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. ASEES HAJI, KAPPUNGAL HOUSE, VETTATHUR P.O.,
MALAPPURA DISTRICT, PIN - 679326
3 HAMZA
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMED, THEVARKALATHIL HOUSE, KAPP SCHOOL
PADI, VETTATHUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
679326
BY ADV K.RAKESH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
BAIL APPL. NO. 2157 OF 2024 2
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MELATTUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
679326
SMT.C.SEENA, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 2157 OF 2024 3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
B.A. No. 2157 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. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.
135/2024 of Melattur Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable
under Secs. 341, 323, 324, 326, 294(b), 506(i), 354A(1), 354B,
308 & sec. 427 r/w 34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 29.01.2024 at about
7.30 pm, the accused attacked the defacto complainant and
her mother after restraining them with a motor cycle key
causing injury on the tooth of the defacto complainant and it is
alleged that the accused in furtherance of their common
intention blew on the face, kicked her and also damaged the
mobile phone. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed
the offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is a
case and counter case. The defacto complainant in this case
was already released on bail. It is also submitted that the 2 nd
petitioner in this case is already arrested. The Public
Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
6. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application
can be allowed on stringent conditions. In the counter case,
which is registered against the defacto complainant in this
case, the anticipatory bail is granted. Considering the facts
and circumstances of this case, I think this bail application can
be allowed as far as the 1st and 3rd petitioners are concerned.
The bail application of the 2nd petitioner can be closed.
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
conditions, as far as the 1st and 3rd petitioners are concerned.
The bail application of the 2nd petitioner is closed.
1. 1st and 3rd 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 1st and 3rd 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. 1st and 3rd petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required.
The 1st and 3rd 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 her from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any police officer;
4. 1st and 3rd petitioners shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court;
5 1st and 3rd 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 1st and 3rd 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. If any of the above conditions are violated by the 1 st
and 3rd 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
