Akhil vs State of Kerala

AKHIL vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided May 09, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1359676

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1359676
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Decided On: May 09, 2023
Case Number: Bail Appl./3822/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

AKHIL

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....the petitioners alleging offences punishable under sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 354, 506, 142, 144, 147 r/w 149 ipc.3. the prosecution case is that, the petitionersand other accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked the de facto complainant. it is also alleged that the accused committed other offences also.4. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned public prosecutor. the counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the entireprosecution case is accepted, no offence under section 354 ipc is made out. it is also submitted that there is a counter case and the fir in that counter case is annexure a2. the public prosecutor opposed the bail application.5. after hearing both sides, i think this bail application can be allowed after imposing stringentconditions. it is a case and counter case. the non- bailable offence alleged against the petitioners is under section 354 ipc. whether 354 ipc is made out or not is a matter to be investigated. i don’t want to make any observation about the same. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, i think the custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary. the petitioners are directed to appear before the investigating officer on all mondays till final report is filed.6. 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.7. 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:1. petitioners shall appear before the.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 19TH VAISAKHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 3822 OF 2023 CRIME NO.473/2023 OF THALAYOLAPARAMBU POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.4 TO 6:

1 AKHIL AGED 32 YEARS S/O. PURUSHAN, KAZHUTHUVEETIL HOUSE, THURUTHUMEKARAYIL, K. S MANGALAM VILLAGE, CHEMBU P.O, VAIKOM, PIN - 686608 2 ADARSH AGED 31 YEARS S/O APPU @ SOMAN, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THURUTHUMEKARAYIL, K. S MANGALAM VILLAGE, CHEMBU P.O, VAIKOM,, PIN - 686608 3 SARATH AGED 34 YEARS S/O SASI @APPU, KALLUPURAKAL HOUSE, THURUTHUMEKARAYIL, K. S MANGALAM VILLAGE, CHEMBU P.O, VAIKOM, PIN - 686 608, PIN - 686608 BY ADV P.M.NATESAN

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PIN- 682031, 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER THALAYOLAPARAMBU POLICE STATION THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686605 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. T.V. NEEMA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- B.A.No.3822 of 2023 ------------------------------- Dated this the 09th day of May, 2023

ORDER

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

2. The petitioners are accused in Crime No.473/2023 of Thalayolaparambu Police Station,

Kottayam District. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 354, 506, 142, 144, 147 r/w 149 IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioners

and other accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked the de facto complainant. It is also alleged that the accused committed other offences also.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the entire

prosecution case is accepted, no offence under Section 354 IPC is made out. It is also submitted that there is a counter case and the FIR in that counter case is Annexure A2. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

5. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed after imposing stringent

conditions. It is a case and counter case. The non- bailable offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 354 IPC. Whether 354 IPC is made out or not is a matter to be investigated. I don’t want to make any observation about the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary. The petitioners are directed to appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays till final report is filed.

6. 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.

7. 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:

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

2. 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;

3. 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;

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

5. 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;

6. The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays at 11 a.m. till final report is filed.

7. 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. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE rmm

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties AKHIL vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan