Rahul K J vs State Of Kerala

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J

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

Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.453/2024 of Sasthamcotta Police Station is arrayed as 4th accused in the above case. The offences alleged are under Secs 143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 506 r/w 149 of IPC.

The prosecution case is that on 17.03.2024 around 10.30 pm, the accused jointly attacked the defacto complainant and his friend with helmet, stick and grass sheer and caused grievous hurt. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences.

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

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the 4th accused and there is no specific overtact against the petitioner. It is submitted that even according to the prosecution, the petitioner has not used any weapon and he attacked using his hand. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a Government employee and he has no criminal antecedents. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. This Court perused the allegation against the petitioner. A perusal of Annexure-1 FIR would show that the allegation against the petitioner is only to the effect that he used his hand to assault the victim. No criminal antecedents is seen alleged before the Sessions Judge when the Bail Application was considered. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think 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) 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

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

5 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.

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]