Achu Raj v. The State of Kerala and The Station House Officer, Koodal Police Station, Pathanamthitta

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 15TH VAISAKHA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 1473 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 916/2023 OF DISTRICT COURT&** **SESSIONS COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:** ACHU RAJ AGED 20 YEARS S/O LATE RAJESH, LATHIKA BHAVANAM, KULATHUMON P.O, POTHUPARA, KOODAL VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689693 BY ADVS. MANU RAMACHANDRAN M.KIRANLAL R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SAMEER M NAIR GEETHU KRISHNAN SAILAKSHMI MENON ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & I.O:** 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KOODAL POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689693 SRI.VIPIN NARAYANAN - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.1473 of 2023 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **--------------------------------** B.A.No.1473 of 2023 **------------------------------Dated this the 05[th] day of May, 2023** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) 2. Petitioner is the 2[nd] accused in Crime No.75 of 2023 of Koodal Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Section 144, 146, 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 427, 341, 308, 506, 120(B) and 325 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The offence under Section 7 r/w Section 27(2) of the Arms Act is also alleged. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused 12 in numbers, in furtherance of their common intention to do away with the defacto complainant B.A.No.1473 of 2023 3 on account of their enmity towards him for helping his friend Omkaram Binu, committed an attack on the defacto complainant while he was travelling in a car. It is alleged that the accused persons following him in motorbikes and one of the accused smashed the window pane of the car with some weapon and another pushed the defacto complainant against his seat and threatened to kill him by placing a sword on his neck and intimidated him. It is also alleged that the other accused persons tried to drag him out of the car. The further case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant sustained damages to his car to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offences punishable under the above sections. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The B.A.No.1473 of 2023 4 counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a student and his name is not mentioned in the First Information Statement. The counsel also submitted that, even as per the prosecution case, the attack on the defacto complainant was using hands, even though the accused was in possession of knife and sword. The counsel submitted that, no serious injuries sustained to the injured. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner committed the offence and this Court may not release the petitioner under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. 5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The petitioner is a student and his name is not mentioned in the First Information Statement. B.A.No.1473 of 2023 5 Even as per the prosecution case, the main allegation is against the 1[st] accused. Moreover, the prosecution case itself is that the accused used only hands to attack the defacto complainant, even though they were in possession of knife and sword. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is no notification as per the Arms Act and hence Section 27 of the Arms Act is not applicable. These are matters to be considered at the time of investigation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. But there can be a direction to the petitioner not to enter the jurisdictional limit of the Koodal Police Station for a period of 30 days so that the investigation of the case can be continued smoothly. Hence this bail application can be B.A.No.1473 of 2023 6 allowed on stringent conditions. 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. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today B.A.No.1473 of 2023 7 and shall undergo interrogation; 2. 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; 3. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; 4. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court; 5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence B.A.No.1473 of 2023 8 similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected; 6. The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of the Koodal Police Station for a period of 30 days after he is released on bail as directed by this Court. The petitioner shall furnish the residential address in which he is going to reside along with Phone number to the Investigating officer at the time of executing the bond. 7. 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. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** DM