Arun vs State Of Kerala

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J

The bail application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.204/2023 of Parippally Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 365, 323, 324, 294(b), 341 r/w Section 149 of IPC.

The prosecution case is that on 12.02.2023 at about 9 pm, while the de-facto complainant was proceeding through the paddy filed at Chavarambalam, accused nos.1 to 3 wrongfully restrained him by uttering obscene words and thereafter manhandled him. It is also alleged that the petitioner is also actively involved in the above incident.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor Smt.Maya M.N.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that accused nos.4 and 5 were already released on bail under Section 438 Cr.PC as evident by Annexure A3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a soldier and he has to report before the Headquarters on 27.05.2023 (day after tomorrow). The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this court grant him bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that if this court is granting bail, on stringent conditions may be imposed.

After hearing both sides, I think this bail can be allowed on stringent conditions. The co-accused were already released on bail under Section 438 Cr.PC as evident by Annexure A3 order. The petitioner can surrender before the investigating officer tomorrow itself so that the investigating officer can interrogate him. Thereafter, the petitioner can be directed to appear before the investigating officer as and when required. Therefore, the bail application is allowed on stringent conditions.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.

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 these case, the bail application is allowed with the following directions:

Petitioner shall surrder before the Investigating Officer tomorrow itself and shall undergo interrogation;

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 for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;

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

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

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;

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.