MAHESH v. STATE OF KERALA

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. The petitioner Mahesh is to be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties of like amount, subject to conditions: appearance before the IO as required, cooperation with investigations, no international travel without court permission, no commission of similar offences, and weekly attendance before the IO until final report is filed; violations can lead to cancellation of bail.
Final Disposition: Bail granted (on strict conditions)

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

MAHESH

Respondents

STATE OF KERALA

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• JITHIN BABU A
• ARUN SAMUEL

Counsels for Respondents

• PP SEENA C

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court bail application concerns Mahesh, the first accused in Crime No. 254/2024 registered at Kodakara Police Station, Thrissur, seeking bail under Section 439 CrPC. The case involves offences alleged under IPC sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 506, and 308 r/w 34. The de facto complainant alleges that on 18.03.2024 at a bar, following alleged animosity over alcohol, the accused and other co-accused assaulted him: abusive language, wrongful restraint, beating, threats to kill, and an attempt to cause fatal injury with a beer bottle. The petitioner was arrested on 19.03.2024 and seeks release on bail while investigation and trial continue. The prosecution contends the allegations are serious, particularly the non-bailable 308 IPC charge, and that bail should be denied or strictly conditioned to protect public order and witnesses. The judge notes two versions exist and that resolving which version is correct requires trial. Citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870), the court reiterates the bail principle: bail is the rule and jail is the exception, to ensure fair trial. Ultimately, the court grants bail subject to stringent conditions, including bond, two sureties, monitoring, non-visit beyond India without court permission, and weekly reporting to the IO.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 506, and 308 r/w 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
Grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception to ensure fair trial.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that he has been in custody since 19.03.2024. It is contended that even if the allegations are accepted in full, the offence under Section 308 IPC is not made out. The incident as alleged is doubtful and the de facto complainant could be the aggressor. The non-bailable nature of 308 IPC cannot ipso facto negate bail where investigation and trial are pending. The right to fair trial and the presumption of innocence warrant grant of bail with stringent conditions to ensure cooperation with investigation and absence of tampering with witnesses. The court is urged to apply the general bail principle and grant relief accordingly, as supported by the Supreme Court’s bail jurisprudence.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, highlighting the seriousness of the allegations and the violent conduct described (abuse, restraint, assault with a metal bangle and beer bottle, threats). The existence of two versions necessitates thorough investigation and the likelihood of risk to public order and witnesses, especially given the non-bailable charge under 308 IPC. Bail at this stage could hinder investigation and could encourage repetition of such acts. The prosecution seeks to attach conditions tailored to prevent tampering with evidence, ensure cooperation, and protect the complainant and public interest.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited to support the principle that bail is the rule and detention is the exception to ensure a fair trial.

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. 3185 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.254/2024 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.03.2024 IN CRMP NO.2361 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,IRINJALAKUDA ``` ``` ............................... ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` MAHESH, AGED 35 YEARS SON OF MURALI, KOSSERY HOUSE, ALATHUR DESOM, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 741. BY ADVS. JITHIN BABU A ARUN SAMUEL ``` ## **`RESPONDENT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031. ``` ``` PP SEENA C ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3185 OF 2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J .......................................... ## B.A.No.3185 of 2024 ............................................. Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024 ## ORDER This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.254/2024 of Kodakara Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 506, and 308 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that, due to the animosity that the de facto complainant did not buy alcohol for the accused persons, on 18.03.2024 at 12.30 p.m., while the de facto complainant was consuming liquor at Kallada bar, in furtherance of common intention ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3185 OF 2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` among all the accused, first accused used abusive languages towards the de facto complainant, second accused wrongfully restrained him by catching hold of his shirt and beat on his chest with bare hands whereas the first accused hit him on the left side of his face with a metal bangle. When the de facto complainant fell down, the third accused threatened to kill him and kicked him several times. When the de facto complainant tried to escape, the first accused hit the de facto complainant on his head with a beer bottle which was evaded by him with his hand, otherwise it would have resulted in his death. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences. The petitioner was arrested on 19.03.2024. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3185 OF 2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 19.03.2024 onwards. It is also submitted that the non bailable offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 308 of IPC. It is the case of the petitioner that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Section 308 of IPC is not made out. According to the petitioner, the incident is not happened as alleged by the prosecution and actually the de facto complainant was the aggressor. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations against the petitioner is serious in nature. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the learned - counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The petitioner is in custody from 19.03.2024 onwards. Whether the offence under Section 308 of ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 3185 OF 2024`** ## **`5`** IPC is made out or not is a matter to be decided at the conclusion of the investigation and trial, if any. There are two versions about the incident, which version is correct is also to be decided at the time of trial. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the period of detention, I think the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. 9. 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 ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3185 OF 2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. 10. 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:This Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: i. Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. ii.The 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. Iii.Petitioner shall not leave India without ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3185 OF 2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` permission of the jurisdictional Court. iv.Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. v.The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays till final report is filed. 11. 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 AMV/19/04/2024 ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3185 OF 2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3185/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` ANNEXURE 1A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 254/2024 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 2A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/03/2024 IN CRL. M.P. NO. 2361/2024 BY JFCM, IRINJALAKUDA. ``` **TRUE COPY**