Kerala High Court
Jibin Joy vs State Of Kerala on 21 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
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3994 OF 2024
CRIME NO.239/2024 OF Nedumkandam Police Station, Idukki
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED :
JIBIN JOY.,
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O. JOY, POLICHIKUNNEL HOUSE, MANKULAM P.O.,
MANKULAM, IDUKKI, PIN - 685565
BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.3994/2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3994 of 2024
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of
Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.239/2024 of
Nedumkandam Police Station. The above case is registered
alleging offences punishable under Sections 454, 354, 354(B),
392 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 01.03.2024 at
about 7.15 P.M. the petitioner along with 1st and 3rd accused in
furtherance of their common intention reached near the house
of the defacto complainant situated at Birdmetty Bhagam,
Nedumkandam in Kalkoonthal village. Thereafter, the 1 st and
2nd accused trespassed into the house of the defacto
complainant and the 1st accused demanded money from her
and at that time the petitioner, who is the 2nd accused tore her
nightie to outrage her modesty and thereby caused a loss of
Rs.200/-. Subsequently, the 1st accused robbed a sum of
Rs.20,000/- from her bag and she lost her gold chain weighing
½ sovereigns worth Rs.20,000/- in that incident and thereby
committed the aforesaid offences.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
allegations against the petitioner are not correct. There was
money transaction between the 1st accused and the defacto
complainant. When the same was demanded by him, a false
case is registered, is the contention. It is submitted that the
petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant
him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application
and submitted that, grievous offences are alleged against the
petitioner.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, there is some
money transaction between the 1st accused and the victim. But
that is not a reason to commit criminal offences. Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, I think this Bail
application can be allowed on stringent conditions. There can
be a direction to the petitioner not to enter the jurisdictional
limit of Nedumkandam Police Station for a period of 30 days
so that the investigation can be completed smoothly.
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
directions:
1. The petitioner 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 petitioner, he 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 arresting officer
concerned.
3. 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.
4. The petitioner shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. The 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.
6. The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional
limit of Nedumkandam Police Station for a
period of 30 days. The petitioner shall furnish
his residential address where he is going to
reside and the phone number to the
Investigating Officer. I make it clear that the
petitioner can enter the jurisdictional limit
when the Investigating Officer direct him to
appear for the purpose of investigation.
7. 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.
8. 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].
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3994/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT DATED 16.04.2024 IN B.A
