Liju Issac vs State Of Kerala

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.196/2023 of Koipuram Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Secs.365, 394, 506(ii) r/w 34 of the IPC.

The prosecution case is that the 1st petitioner is the dealer of Kerala State Lotteries and conducting a Lottery Shop at Mallappally. The 2nd petitioner is a painter and the 3rd petitioner is an electrician. The defacto complainant is the neighbour of the 1st petitioner and was working as the Salesman in the Lottery Shop of the 1st petitioner. The defacto complainant stolen an amount of Rs.26,000/- from the Lottery Shop of the 1st petitioner and absconding from his native place. The prosecution alleged that on 05.03.2023 at 3.15 pm, while the defacto complainant was standing in front of the Bata Showroom at Maramon, the accused persons who were travelling in a car stopped the car and forcecibly taken the defacto complainant into the car and drove away. It is further alleged that the defacto complainant was kidnapped and taken to the house construction site of the 1st petitioner at Mallappally. It is also alleged that the accused committed robbery of Rs.6,000/-. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed offences.

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

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had not committed any offence. The petitioners were actually reported the matter to the Police and the defacto complainant was apprehended. Thereafter, a false case is foisted against the petitioners is the contention. It is also submitted that there is delay in filing the complaint. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

After carefully perusing the allegation against the petitioners, I think the petitioners can be released on bail under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. I do not want to make any observation about the merit of the case. It is the case of the 1st petitioner that the defacto complainant stolen an amount of Rs.26,000/- from his shop and absconded. The petitioners says that when the defacto complainant was subsequently found on 05.03.2023, the same was reported to the Police. The kidnap and robbery is denied by the petitioners. I do not want to make any observation about the merit of the case. These are matters to be investigated by the Police. Custodial interrogation may not be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. I think the petitioners can be released on bail imposing 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 this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:

Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;

After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;

Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners 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;

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

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

If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.