Girish v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 27TH CHAITHRA, 1946** **BAIL APPL. NO. 2634 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.239/2024 OF NEDUMKANDAM POLICE STATION, IDUKKI** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **GIRISH AGED 35 YEARS PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, PANAMKUTTY P.O., KONNATHADY, IDUKKI, PIN - 685562** **BY ADVS. SHYSON P.MANGUZHA PAUL S. MANGUZHA AUGUSTUS S. MANGUZHA** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** - **2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NEDUMKANDAM POLICE STATION IDUKKI DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031** **BY ADV.** ## **SRI.PRASHANTH M.P., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.2634 of 2024 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **--------------------------------** B.A.No.2634 of 2024 **------------------------------Dated this the 16[th] day of April, 2024** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.239/2024 of Nedumkandam Police Station. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Section 454, 354, 354(B), 392, 427 r/w 34 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 01.03.2024 at about 7.15 P.M. the petitioner along with 2[nd] and 3[rd] accused in furtherance of their common intention reached near the house of the defacto complainant situated at Birdmetty Bhagam, Nedumkandam in Kalkoonthal village. Thereafter, the 1[st] and 2[nd] accused trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and the petitioner who is the 1[st] accused B.A.No.2634 of 2024 3 demanded money from her and at that time the 2[nd] accused tore her nightie to outrage her modesty and thereby caused a loss of Rs.200/-. Subsequently, the petitioner/1[st] accused robbed a sum of Rs.20,000/from her bag and she lost her gold chain weighing ½ sovereigns worth Rs.20,000/- in that incident and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are not correct. There was money transaction between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. When the same was demanded, a false case is registered, is the contention. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that, grievous offences are alleged against the petitioner. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the B.A.No.2634 of 2024 4 petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, there is some money transaction between the petitioner and the victim. But that is not a reason to commit criminal offences. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think this Bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. There can be a direction to the petitioner not to enter the jurisdictional limit of Nedumkandam Police Station for a period of 30 days so that the investigation can be completed smoothly. 7. 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 B.A.No.2634 of 2024 5 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 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; B.A.No.2634 of 2024 6 4. 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; 6. Petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of Nedumkandam Police Station for a period of 30 days. The petitioner shall furnish his residential address where he is going to reside and the phone number to the Investigating Officer. I make it clear that the petitioner can enter the jurisdictional limit when the Investigating Officer direct him to appear for the purpose of investigation. 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. 8. Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate B.A.No.2634 of 2024 7 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]. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** DM B.A.No.2634 of 2024 8 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2634/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** - **ANNEXURE 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR DATED 05.03.2024 REGISTERED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 07.03.2024 FILED BY PETITIONER'S WIFE** - **ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07.03.2024** - **ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.03.2024 IN CRL. M.C. NO. 182 OF 2024 OF THE LEARNED SESSIONS JUDGE'S COURT, THODUPUZHA** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE**