Pankajakshan Nair vs State Of Kerala

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J

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

The petitioner is accused in Crime No.331 of 2023 of Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 & 354 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.).

It is alleged that the accused and his daughter, who is the de-facto complainant, are not in terms. On 13.03.2023 at about 10.15 p.m., when the de-facto complainant went to take medicine for her child, the accused switched off the light on return the de-facto complainant, which enmity to the de-facto complainant by the accused and assaulted the de-facto complainant and caused to tore her T-shirt and caught hold of her hair and hit on wall and sustained serious injuries.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are not correct. The learned counsel for the petitioner again submitted that the petitioner and the de-facto complainant are father and daughter. It is further submitted that the non-bailable offence alleged is under Section 354 of I.P.C. and the same is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions, if this Court grant him bail. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is true, that the allegation against the petitioner is serious. But, whether the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. is made out in the facts and circumstances of the case, is a matter to be investigated, I don’t want to make any observations in this case.

Considering the entire 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 to appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays till final report is filed. With that rider, this bail application can be allowed.

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:

Petitioner 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 petitioner, he 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;

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;

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;

The petitioner shall before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 11.00 a.m., till final report is filed.

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.