Amineesh M Anil vs State Of Kerala

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J

Petitioner is one of the accused in Crime No.141/2024 of Eravipuram Police Station. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable  under  Sections  143,  147,  148,  294(b), 506,  323,  326  read  with  149  of  the  Indian  Penal Code.

The prosecution case is that on 21.01.2024 at about 10.45 p.m, the accused attacked the victim. It is alleged that the 2nd accused assaulted the victim, which resulted in fracture to the nasal bone of the victim. The 3rd accused used abusive words and threatened that the victim need not conduct shop at that place. It is also submitted that the 1st accused used a sword and attacked the victim and the victim escaped from it. The 4th accused used a pipe and the 5th accused also attacked using dangerous weapons. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR. According to the petitioner, the victim is the aggressor in the case and he attacked the 1st accused, the petitioner and the 5th accused. It is submitted that the petitioner and the 5th accused sustained serious injuries. It is also submitted that the other accused were released on bail, except the petitioner. The petitioner also produced Annexure A3 & A4 to show that the injuries sustained to him and the 5th accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grants him anticipatory bail. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application.

After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. There are two versions about the same incident. Who is the aggressor is to be decided at the time of investigating the case or at the time of trial.

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:

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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

iv. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court;

v. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected;

vi. 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.

vii. 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].