Kerala High Court
Sineesh 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. 2413 OF 2024
CRIME NO.182/2024 OF North Paravur Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/S:
1 SINEESH
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O BABU, MADATHIPARAMBIL NANTHIYATTUKUNNAM, NORTH
PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513
2 AKHIL.P.B.@AKHIL BINU
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O VINOD, PUKKATTUPARAMBU NANTHIYATTUKUNNAM, NORTH
PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513
3 NISHAD
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O THANKAPPAN, PUKKATTUPARAMBU NANTHIYATTUKUNNAM,
NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513
4 SUJITH@AMBLU
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O THANKAPPAN,PUKKATTUPARAMBU NANTHIYATTUKUNNAM,
NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513
5 SREEJITH
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O THANKAPPAN,PUKKATTUPARAMBU NANTHIYATTUKUNNAM,
NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513
6 ABHILASH
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O BABU, MADATHIPARAMBIL NANTHIYATTUKUNNAM, NORTH
PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513
BY ADVS.
PRASUN.S
N.A.RETHEESH
B.A. No.2413 of 2024 2
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
NORTH PARUR POLICE STATION, NORTH PARUR, KOCHI, PIN
- 683513
BY ADVS.
M.VIVEK
K.V.DEEPU , 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:
B.A. No.2413 of 2024 3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
B.A. No. 2413 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. 182/2024 of
North Parur Police Station. The above case is registered
against the accused alleging offences punishable under Secs
341, 323, 326 r/w 34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 20.02.2024, the
accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to
assault the defacto complainant and his friends, reached near
Thonniyakavu temple. It is alleged that the accused persons
restrained the friend of the defacto complainant and inflicted
injuries to him. On seeing this, one Midhun and Akhil who are
also friends of the defacto complainant intervened, the 1 st
accused beat Midhun on his right hand using an iron rod and
he sustained fracture. The 2 nd accused stabbed under the eye of
the Midhun and he sustained injury. He also sustained injury
over his right ear. The other accused also assaulted the injured
is the allegation. Hence, it is alleged that the accused
committed the offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
incident in this case is happened as a counter blast to a case, in
which the defacto complainant and his friends attacked the
petitioners. That crime is registered as crime No. 181/2024 of
the very same Police Station and this case is registered
interalia under Sec.307 IPC. The counsel submitted that now
the matter is settled between the parties and they have no
grievance against each other. The Public Prosecutor submitted
that even though the matter is settled, the settlement cannot
be accepted because the offence alleged are non-
compoundable. Considering the facts and circumstances of this
case and also considering the fact that it is a case and counter
case, I think the petitioners can be granted bail after imposing
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.
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. 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
