Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail granted with conditions.

Jegannadhan, Ashal, and Muhammad Ansary v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No.3380 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Judgment Date
2024-04-19
Court Decision / Holding
The Bail Application is allowed. Petitioners shall be released on bail on executing bonds of Rs. 50,000 each with two solvent sureties for the same amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court. They must appear before the IO for interrogation as required, shall not induce or threaten witnesses, shall not leave India without court permission, shall not commit similar offences, and shall appear before the IO every Monday at 10:00 AM until final report. If any condition is violated, bail may be cancelled. The decision relies on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, as articulated in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 SC scale).
Final Disposition
Bail granted with conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Jegannadhan
  • Ashal
  • Muhammad Ansary

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, representing the S.I. of Police, Thalayolapparambu Police Station
  • Abin Kunjumon

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Paul Abraham Vakkanal
  • • Vineetha Susan Thomas
  • • Abraham Vakkanal (Sr.)

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Prasun S.
  • • N.A. Retheesh (K/184/2005)
  • • Prasanth M.P., Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court bail application (BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3380 of 2024) arising from Crime No. 394/2024 registered at Thalayolapparambu Police Station. The petitioners— Jegannadhan (21), Ashal (19), and Muhammad Ansary (19)—were arrested on 9-10 April 2024 and are accused under IPC sections including 141, 142, 143, 147, 294(b), 341, 323, 363, 365, 368, and 212 read with 149. The prosecution case describes that, on 05.04.2024, the petitioners allegedly followed the informant, uttered obscene words, restrained him, beat him, and forcibly took him to a location where he was confined. The counsel for the petitioners argued that the dispute with the informant has been settled, supported by Annexure A2 (an affidavit by the informant). The Public Prosecutor opposed bail citing the non-compoundable nature of some offences. The Court noted that the petitioners have been in custody since 09.04.2024 but found that bail can be granted with stringent conditions, invoking the Supreme Court’s view in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, to safeguard the right to a fair trial. The order ultimately grants bail to the petitioners on terms: Rs. 50,000 bond per petitioner with two solvent sureties, appearance before IO as required, non-disclosure/inducement provisos, no leaving the country without court permission, refraining from committing similar offences, and weekly appearance on Mondays at 10 AM until final report. The court also notes the non-availability of any respondent exhibits and lists annexures. The judgment closes with a formal bail grant by Judge P.V. Kunhikrishnan.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 Cr.P.C.IPC: 141, 142, 143, 147, 294(b), 341, 323, 363, 365, 368, 212 r/w 149

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
  • Right to a fair trial requires the accused have opportunity to secure a fair trial (principle reiterated from Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the dispute with the defacto complainant is settled, supported by Annexure A2 (an affidavit from the informant). They urged that in light of the settlement, detention is unnecessary and bail should be granted with appropriate conditions. They acknowledged that some offences may be non-compoundable, but argued that settlement and the overarching principle of bail should prevail to enable a fair trial and prevent undue confinement.

Contentions of Respondents

The prosecution opposed bail on the grounds that the offences include non-compoundable elements and that releasing the accused could undermine the investigation and public interest. They urged the court to maintain custody until investigations and the case's complexities are addressed.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement2019 (16) SCALE 870PositiveUsed to support the proposition that bail is the rule and jail the exception, guiding the court’s discretionary grant of bail.

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 Jegannadhan, Ashal, and Muhammad Ansary 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 19[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 30TH CHAITHRA, 1946** **BAIL APPL. NO. 3380 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.394/2024 OF THALAYOLAPARAMBU POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM PETITIONER(S):** - **1 JEGANNADHAN, AGED 21 YEARS S/O PONNAPPAN, MOONARATHOONIYIL VEETTIL, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, EDAVATTOM KARA, EDAVATTOM.P.O., THALAYOLAPARAMBU, PIN - 686605** - **2 ASHAL, AGED 19 YEARS S/O SATHEESHAN, VAIMBANATHVEETTIL, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, EDAVATTOM KARA, EDAVATTOM.P.O., THALAYOLAPARAMBU, PIN - 686605** - **3 MUHAMMAD ANSARY, AGED 19 YEARS S/O DILEEP, VAZHATHARAYIL VEETTIL, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, EDAVATTOM KARA, EDAVATTOM.P.O., THALAYOLAPARAMBU, PIN - 686605 BY ADVS. PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL VINEETHA SUSAN THOMAS ABRAHAM VAKKANAL (SR.)** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, THALAYOLAPARAMBU POLICE STATION, PIN - 682031** - **2 ABIN KUNJUMON, AGED 24 YEARS S/O KUNJUMON, NADUTHURUTHEL HOUSE, NEAR KARTHYANI TEMPLE, KIZHAKKEPURAM KARA, VADAYAR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686605 BY ADVS. PRASUN.S** - **N.A.RETHEESH(K/184/2005) SRI.PRASANTH M.P., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.3380 of 2024 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **--------------------------------** ## B.A.No.3380 of 2024 **------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of April, 2024** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) 2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.394/2024 of Thalayolapparambu Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offence punishable under Sections 141, 142, 143, 147, 294(b), 341, 323, 363, 365, 368, 212 r/w 149 of IPC. The petitioners were arrested and produced before the court on 10.04.2024 and they were remanded to judicial custody. 3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: On 05.04.2024 at about 09.30 p.m, the accused in furtherance of their common intention followed first informant and when he reached near to Karthyayani B.A.No.3380 of 2024 3 Temple, Thalayolapparambu, the accused Nos.1 and 2 uttered obscene words towards the first informant and accused Nos.3 and 4 wrongfully restrained him and beat him. Thereafter accused Nos.1 to 4 forcefully taken him in their bike and thereafter kept him at Chunkam and he was confined there. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the afore said offences. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. When this Bail application came up for consideration, the counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the entire dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant are settled and an affidavit of the defacto complainant is also produced as Annexure A2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Bail application and submitted that the offence alleged includes non compoundable offence. 6. It is a fact that the petitioners are in custody from 09.04.2024 onwards. Considering the facts and B.A.No.3380 of 2024 4 circumstances of the case, I think the continued detention of the petitioners is not necessary. The petitioners can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. 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. 8. 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 be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties B.A.No.3380 of 2024 5 each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. The 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. 3. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. 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. 5. Petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays at 10 A.M. till final report is filed. B.A.No.3380 of 2024 6 6. 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** DM B.A.No.3380 of 2024 7 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3380/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 11-4-2024 IN CMP 1904 / 2024 BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, VAIKOM.** **ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 15-4-2024.** **ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 184-2024 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, GOVT. POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, KADUTHURUTHY, SHOWING INTER ALIA THAT THE 1ST APPLICANT IS HAVING ADMISSION NO. 5199 AND IS A FINAL YEAR STUDENT OF THE SAID COLLEGE.** - **ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT. 17-42024 ISSUED BY THE CENTRE IN CHARGE, IMAGE CREATIVE EDUCATION, PALARIVATTOM, SHOWING INTER ALIA THAT THE 2ND APPLICANT WAS A REGULAR STUDENT IN THAT INSTITUTION FROM 20212023 AND HIS COURSE WAS COMPLETED IN NOVEMBER 2023.** - **ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT. 17-42024 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, ORIENTAL SCHOOL OF HOTEL MANAGEMENT, LAKKIDI, WAYANAD, SHOWING INTER ALIA THAT THE 3RD APPLICANT IS STUDYING B.SC. HOSPITALITY & HOTEL ADMINISTRATION IN THE SAID INSTITUTE.** - **ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE DATE SHEET DT. 19-32024 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR (STUDIES) OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR HOTEL MANAGEMENT AND CATERING TECHNOLOGY, SHOWING THE EXAMINATION SCHEDULE FOR** B.A.No.3380 of 2024 8 **ACADEMIC YEAR 2023-2024 IN RESPECT OF THE COURSE PURSUED BY THE 3RD APPLICANT.** **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE**