Kerala High Court
Nidhin E.K vs State Of Kerala on 20 May, 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
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3372 OF 2024
CRIME NO.16/2024 OF EDAKKAD POLICE STATION, KANNUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:
NIDHIN E.K,
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O SATHEESH KUMAR, KANNANCHALIL HOUSE, KOTTOLI P.O,
KUTHIRAVATTOM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016
BY ADV M.H.HANIS
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.3372 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,J.
---------------------
B.A.No.3372 of 2024
---------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of May, 2024
ORDER
This bail application is filed under Section 439 of
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
2. The petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.
16/2024 of Edakkad Police Station. The above case is
registered alleging offences punishable under Sections
294(b), 506(ii), 307, 332, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 of Indian Penal
Code, Section 4 r/w Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act and
Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property
Act.
3. The prosecution case is that on 08-01-2024, at
midnight, while the de facto complainant and party were
conducting night patrolling in a Jeep and when they reached
at Pothuvachery, the accused Nos.1 to 4, who came in a Car
bearing a fake registration, had uttered obscene words,
threatened and brandished a sword against them and
attempted to murder them and caused hurt to a constable.
The accused caused damage to the tune of Rs.4,000/- to the
Jeep, which is a public property.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from
13.01.2024 onwards. It is also submitted that the petitioner is
ready to abide any condition, if this Court grant him bail. The
learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and
submitted that the offences alleged against the petitioner are
very serious.
5. This Court considered the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
The petitioner is in custody from 13-01-2024 onwards. I think
indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary. It is
true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious.
But that alone is not a reason to reject the bail application,
because the petitioner is in custody for about 90 days. The
investigation of the case is almost over. Therefore, this bail
application can be allowed on stringent conditions.
6. 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.
7. 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 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 he is accused, or suspected, of the
commission of which he is suspected.
5. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating
officer on all Mondays till final report is filed.
6. 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
bng
