Kerala High Court
Rajesh S 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. 3103 OF 2024
CRIME NO.221/2024 OF CHITHARA POLICE STATION, Kollam
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED PERSONS:
1 RAJESH S
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O SUGATHAN K, BLOCK NO 180, PERINGAMALA, CHITHARA
P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691541
2 SUMESH
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O SUGATHAN K, BLOCK NO 180, PERINGAMALA, CHITHARA
P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691541
BY ADV. NAHAS H.
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS / STATE OF KERALA:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SMT SEENA C, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.3103 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3103 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.221 of
2024 of Chithara Police Station, Kollam District. The
above case is registered alleging offences punishable
under 143, 147, 323, 324, 332, 353, 354 r/w 149 IPC.
The offence under Section 3(2)(e) of the Prevention of
Damages to Public Property Act is also alleged.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 09.03.2024, a
woman police Sub-inspector and police man who were on
guard duty during a temple festival were assaulted by a
group of people under the influence of alcohol after
obstructing their official duties. It is also alleged that the
accused outraged the modesty of the female Sub-
inspector. It is further alleged that the accused caused
damage to the police vehicle to the tune of Rs.20,000/-
and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners are not involved in the case and they have not
committed any offence. The counsel also submitted that
the petitioners are ready to obey any conditions, if this
Court grant them bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the
Bail application and submitted that the petitioners
committed serious offences.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. After hearing both
sides, I think this Bail application can be allowed on
stringent conditions. It is stated that the petitioners and
other accused damaged public property to the tune of
Rs.20,000/-. Therefore, there can be a direction to the
petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- each
before the Jurisdictional court as a condition for granting
bail.
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) each 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 them 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. Petitioners shall deposit an amount of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) each before the
Jurisdictional court and produce the receipt before the
Investigating Officer at the time of surrender. The
deposited amount will be subject to the final decision in
the case.
7. 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 petitioner even while the
petitioner is 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].
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
DM
