Abi Krishna @ Sudhi vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 12990 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 12990 Ker
Judgement Date : 23 May, 2024

Kerala High Court

Abi Krishna @ Sudhi vs State Of Kerala on 23 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
      THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
                       BAIL APPL. NO. 3905 OF 2024
   CRIME NO.1360/2023 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER:

            ABI KRISHNA @ SUDHI,
            AGED 28 YEARS
            S/O. G.KRISHNA MOORTHI, KOLATTU HOUSE, WEST FORT,
            MAVELIKARA P.O., AALPPUZHA, PIN - 690101

            BY ADV T.S.HARIKUMAR



RESPONDENT:

            STATE OF KERALA,
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
            PIN - 682031


OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY, PP




     THIS     BAIL   APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No.3905 of 2024
                         2


                  P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
              ---------------------
                   B.A.No.3905 of 2024
           ---------------------------
             Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2024

                             ORDER

This bail application is filed under Section 438 of

Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)

2. The petitioner is arrayed as the 2 nd accused in

Crime No. 1360 of 2023 of Mavelikkara Police Station. The

above case is registered alleging offences punishable under

Secs. 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 328 and 308 IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused persons

on 22.12.2023, on being agitated on prohibiting the accused

and others from dancing in tune with the folklore song

performed in connection with the temple festival of Kandiyoor

Mahadeva Temple, attacked the defacto complainant with

stick by spraying some hot spray and thus committed the

offences. It is further alleged that the nasal bone of the

defacto complainant get fractured.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

version of the defacto complainant is not correct. The

incident is not happened as alleged by the defacto

complainant. It is also stated that there was CCTV cameras

installed in the temple premises and the incident as alleged

is not seen recorded there and not came to the notice of the

police or temple authorities. It is also submitted that the

petitioner and his family were LDF workers earlier and they

shifted their allegiance to BJP in the last election to the Local

Self Government Institutions and the petitioner's mother is

elected as a counsellor to the Mavelikkara Municipality.

Thereafter, there was a move from the ruling front of the

State to implicate the petitioner in several crimes is the

submission. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application and submitted that the injured sustained serious

injuries.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the

petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. After hearing both sides,

I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent

conditions. The incident happened in a temple in connection

with a festival. Several persons participated in the alleged

offence. I am of the considered opinion that the custodial

interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary in the

facts and circumstances of this case. The petitioner can be

directed to appear before the investigating officer twice in a

week till final report is filed. With the above conditions, the

bail can be granted.

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

these case, the bail application is allowed with the following

directions: :-

i) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating

Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo

interrogation;

ii) After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer

proposes to arrest the petitioner, she 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;

iii) 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;

iv) Petitioner shall not leave India without permission

of the jurisdictional Court;