Irfan P.K. and Hashim B. v. The State of Kerala

## **`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. 3249 OF 2023 ``` ``` CRIME NO.375/2023 OF PAZHAYANGADI POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:`** ``` 1IRFAN. P.K., S/O. EBRAHIMKUTTY, AGED 29 YEARS, POOVATHINKEEL, MATTOOL NORTH NEAR: MOHIYUDEEN MASJID, MATTOOL, KANNUR, MATTOOL NORTH, KERALA, PIN – 670325. 2HASHIM B., S/O. AHMED, AGED 27 YEARS, BAYAN HOUSE, NEAR: JUMA MASJID, MATTOOL NORTH, KANNUR, KERALA, PIN – 670325. BY ADVS. ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) PRAJIT RATNAKARAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** ``` THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031. ``` ``` BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SRI.VIPIN NARAYANAN--GP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.3249 of 2023 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A.No.3249 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. 2. The petitioners are accused in Crime No.375/2023 of Pazhayangadi Police Station, Kannur District. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 332, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, 3. The prosecution case is that on 10.04.2023 at 3.35 a.m., the Police party was on night patrol duty and B.A.No.3249 of 2023 3 when they reached near Pazhayangadi bus stand a tipper lorry, without exhibiting registration number, was seen transporting river sand. The police jeep followed the said lorry and then the driver of the vehicle, with the intention of killing the Police officer, hit on the jeep and caused injury to them. It is alleged that the accused obstructed the official duty and caused damage to the police jeep to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only). Hence it is alleged that the petitioner committed offence. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is not correct. The petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this court grant them bail. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted B.A.No.3249 of 2023 4 that serious damages are caused to the vehicle and therefore this Court may not invoke Section 438 Cr.P.C. in this case. 5. This Court considered the contention of the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioners is serious in nature. But, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, custodial interrogation may not be necessary. It is alleged that the petitioners caused damage to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the public property. If that is the case, there can be a direction to the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) each before the jurisdictional court and the refund of the same will be subject to the final decision of this case. This Court, in **Hemachandran M. T. @ Kamalesh & Others v. Sub Inspector of Police & Another (2011** B.A.No.3249 of 2023 5 **(4) KLT 841)** , observed that this Court can impose such conditions in cases registered under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Hence, with a direction to deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) each by the petitioners, this bail application can be allowed. 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 B.A.No.3249 of 2023 6 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 B.A.No.3249 of 2023 7 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 deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) each before the jurisdictional Magistrate court and produce the receipt of the same before the Investigating Officer at the time of surrender. The refund of the above amount will be subject to the final decision in the above case. 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 B.A.No.3249 of 2023 8 granted by this Court. ## **Sd/-** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** Skk/04052023