## **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. 3122 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.178/2024 OF SHORNUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO:1 TO 10 AND 12:** - **1 DILEEP V, AGED 49 YEARS S/O KUTTINARAYANAN VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE CHERUKATTUPULAM P.O, VANIYAMKULAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679522** - **2 RAJESH, AGED 37 YEARS S/O RAMAKRISHNAN, PADINJATTUMURI ATHRA CHERUKATTUPULAM P.O, VANIYAMKULAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679522** - **3 DEEPAK V.P AGED 24 YEARS S/O DILEEP V VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERUKATTUPULAM P.O, VANIYAMKULAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679522** - **4 V.P AKSHAY @ SOTHUTTAN, AGED 21 YEARS REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031** - **5 A.K RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 62 YEARS S/O KRISHNAN, AYYANAMKUNNATH PARAMBIL, CHERUKATTUPULAM P.O, VANIYAMKULAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679522** - **6 VIJAYANARAYANAN, AGED 58 YEARS S/O GOPI NAIR, KULAKKALLOOR, CHERUKATTUPULAM P.O, VANIYAMKULAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679522** - **7 VIJESH K P, AGED 31 YEARS S/O GOPALAKRISHNAN K P, KIZHAKKEPURAKKIL CHERUKATTUPULAM P.O, VANIYAMKULAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679522** - **8 VINAYAN K, AGED 43 YEARS S/O SUNDARAN K, KUNNANANGATH HOUSE CHERUKATTUPULAM** **B.A. No.3122 of 2024** **2** - **P.O, VANIYAMKULAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679522** - **9 JAYESH P.A, AGED 36 YEARS S/O NARAYANAN P A, PADINJATTUMURI ATHRA, CHERUKATTUPULAM P.O, VANIYAMKULAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679522** - **10 JIJESH P A., AGED 33 YEARS S/O NARAYANAN P A, PADINJATTUMURI HOUSE,CHERUKATTUPULAM P.O, VANIYAMKULAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679522** - **11 SANDEEP M, AGED 25 YEARS S/O SATHEESAN MG, SRAVADAKKATTU PUTHANPURA, MANNANUR P.O VANIYAMKULAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679523** - **BY ADV. KAVERY S THAMPI** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:** - **1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER AGED 24 YEARS** - **SHORNUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679121** - **2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, 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.3122 of 2024** **3** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **--------------------------------------B.A. No. 3122 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. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 10 and 12 in Crime No.178/2024 of Shornur Police Station. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 294(b), 506 r/w 149 of IPC. The offence under Section 3 and 5 of the Kerala Prevention of Damages to Private Property and Payment of Compensation Act, 2019 is also alleged. 3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioners and other accused formed themselves into an unlawful **B.A. No.3122 of 2024** **4** assembly knowing that each one of them was a member of the said assembly, trespassed after breaking open the wire fence placed in the boundary of the property situated near to Aryankavu temple, took and threw the mobile phone of the complainant and his friends, destroyed the coconut saplings in the property, threw stones at the house and broke the asbestos sheet, roof tiles causing a loss of Rs.3 lakhs and further abused the complainant and his family members. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegation against the petitioners are false and no such incident happened as alleged by the prosecution. The Public Prosecutor opposed the Bail application. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think this bail application **B.A. No.3122 of 2024** **5** can be allowed. Since the offence under the provisions of Kerala Prevention of Damage to Private Property and Payment of Compensation Act is alleged, the petitioners can be directed to deposit certain amount while granting bail. The total loss alleged is Rs.3 lakhs. Therefore, there can be a direction to the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.12,000/- each. 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 decision and considering the facts and circumstances of **B.A. No.3122 of 2024** **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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; **B.A. No.3122 of 2024** **7** 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.12,000/- each before the Jurisdictional court and produce the receipt before the Investigating Officer at the time of surrender. The amount deposited will be subject to the final disposal of the 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 granted by this Court. 8. Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any given by the petitioners even while the **B.A. No.3122 of 2024** **8** petitioners are 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.3122 of 2024** **9** ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3122/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **ANNEXURE A** **A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 178/2024 OF SHORNUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT** **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE**