High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-05-06Bail granted with conditions

Abdul Jalal P.K. v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No.3274 of 2022

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2022-05-06
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed with conditions: (1) bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, one of whom must be a close relative; (2) petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer on designated days until final report; (3) petitioner shall not leave India without court permission; (4) petitioner shall not commit any similar offence; (5) petitioner shall provide his phone number and residence details to the IO and jurisdictional court; (6) petitioner shall surrender his passport or file an affidavit if not available; (7) if any condition is violated, bail may be cancelled by the court. The prosecution and victim may apply to cancel bail on violation.
Final Disposition: Bail granted with conditions

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdul Jalal P.K.

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Station House Officer, Kumbla Police Station, Kasargode District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sarun Rajan Binil Bhasi

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Sreeja V, Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by the first accused in Crime No. 68/2022 of Kumbla Police Station, Kasargod, alleging offences under Sections 457, 461 and 380 IPC in connection with the alleged theft of a Toyota Fortuner valued at Rs. 9 lakhs, a CCTV monitor, and a Rolex watch from the informant’s house at Songal, Mangalpady, Kasargod. The petitioner, Abdul Jalal P.K., aged 49, has been in custody since 09.03.2022. The prosecution case states that the theft occurred between the night of 14.01.2022 and the early hours of 15.01.2022, and that the accused acted with others, including individuals from different states, with the watch later recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner contends lack of connection to the crime, asserts an alibi, and points to business reasons and illness; he also contends that tower location and call details can substantiate his non-involvement. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, highlighting the gravity of the allegations and the involvement of other states, but concedes no criminal antecedents for the petitioner. The court cites the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, referencing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement to justify granting bail. Ultimately, the court allows bail with conditions: Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties (one a close relative); appearance before the IO thrice weekly; restrictions on travel; passport surrender; and measures to ensure cooperation and prevent tampering, with the option for cancellation on violation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)Section 457 IPCSection 461 IPCSection 380 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends lack of connection to the crime, asserts his absence from the place of occurrence, and points to alibi which can be verified by examining tower location and call details. He notes he came to Kasargod for business and was arrested there, and he suffers from illnesses; he asks for bail on medical grounds and on the premise that investigation is near completion.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposes bail on the ground that the offences are serious and the accused is part of a group with associates from other states; the watch was recovered from the petitioner, signifying involvement. However, it is acknowledged that there are no criminal antecedents against him; the prosecution argues for conditions to ensure cooperation and prevent flight, such as regular IO appearances, travel restrictions, passport surrender, and close supervision.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited to reaffirm the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, a guiding doctrine in bail jurisprudence.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abdul Jalal P.K. v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 16TH VAISAKHA, 1944** **BAIL APPL. NO. 3274 OF 2022** **CRIME NO.68/2022 OF KUMBLA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:** ABDUL JALAL.P.K AGED 49 YEARS, S/O KATHAR, PALATHINGAL HOUSE, POOVATHUSSERY, NEAR PURAYATTIKALARI TEMPLE, PARAKKADAVU, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683579 BY ADVS. SARUN RAJAN BINIL BHASI ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER KUMBLA POLICE STATION, KASARGODE DISTRICT PIN – 671321 BY ADV.SMT.SREEJA V, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.3274 of 2022 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.3274 of 2022 ------------------------------- Dated this the 6[th] day of May, 2022 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.68 of 2022 of Kumbla Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 457, 461 and 380 of IPC. Petitioner was arrested on 09.03.2022 and from that date onwards he is in custody. 3.The prosecution case is that between 19 hours on 14.01.2022 and 7 am on 15.01.2022 the accused in this case along with other accused trespassed into the house of the informant and committed theft of a Toyota Fortuner car worth Rs.9 lakhs which was parked in the car porch of his house at Songal in B.A.No.3274 of 2022 3 Mangalpady Village. It is also alleged that the accused persons have committed theft of CCTV Monitor worth Rs.25,000/- and a Rolex watch worth Rs.1 lakh from the house of the informant. Thus the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 09.03.2022 onwards. The counsel submitted that the petitioner has no connection with the crime. The petitioner came to Kasargode for his business purpose and he was arrested at that time. The counsel submitted that the petitioner was not even available at the place of occurrence and the same can be ascertained by checking the tower location and call details of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner is suffering from different illness and therefore the petitioner may be released on bail. It is further submitted that the investigation of the B.A.No.3274 of 2022 4 case is almost over. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is one of the accused in the case and very serious allegations are there against the petitioner. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the other accused persons belongs to different States and the watch which was stolen from the house was subsequently recovered from the petitioner. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. But no criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody from 09.03.2022 onwards. There can be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer thrice in a week till final report is filed. There can be a direction to the effect that the petitioner shall not leave the Kumbla Police Station limit till the investigation of the case is over. There can be a further direction that one of the sureties of the accused shall be a close relative of B.A.No.3274 of 2022 5 the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce the passport before the jurisdictional court and if no such passport is available, an affidavit to that effect shall be filed before the court concerned. If the petitioner committed similar offence, the prosecution can be allowed to file an application to cancel the bail. Similarly, if any conditions in this bail order is violated the prosecution can be allowed to file an application to cancel the bail. With the above observation this bail application can be allowed. 5. 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 B.A.No.3274 of 2022 6 securing fair trial. 6. 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. Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. One of the sureties shall be a close relative of the petitioner. 2. The 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 B.A.No.3274 of 2022 7 inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. 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. 5. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer on all Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at 10 am till final report is filed. 6. Petitioner shall not leave the Kumbla Police Station limit till final B.A.No.3274 of 2022 8 report is filed, without the permission of the jurisdictional court. 7. Petitioner shall furnish his phone number and the details of the place where he is going to reside within the Kumbla Police Station before the jurisdictional court and also to the Investigating Officer. 8. Petitioner shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court and if there is no such passport, the petitioner shall file an affidavit to that effect before the jurisdictional court. 9. 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 B.A.No.3274 of 2022 9 Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above conditions. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** DM B.A.No.3274 of 2022 10 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3274/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R DATED 15.01.2022 IN CRIME NO. 68/2022 OF KUMBLA POLICE STATION, KASARGODE DISTRICT ANNEXURE-A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.04.2022 IN C.M.P NO.1317 OF 2022 //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE