Sajan vs State Of Kerala

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J.

Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.159/2024 of Chingavanam Police Station. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case is that on 27.01.2024 at about 10.30 p.m, at a place near Podippara Church at Ithithanam, the accused persons wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and attacked him with a stone.

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

The  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner submits that the other accused is already released on bail. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application.

This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. After hearing both sides, I think that this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. According to the petitioner, there is a delay of 13 days in filing the complaint. Whether the explanation for the delay is genuine or not is a matter to be decided at the time of trial. But the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. I think that bail can be granted to the petitioner with a condition that he will appear before the Investigating Officer twice in a week.

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, 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;

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. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 10 a.m till final disposal of the case.

vii. 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.

viii. 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].