High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-04-19Bail granted

Midhun Mukundan and others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No.2421 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2024-04-19
Court Decision / Holding: This Bail Application is allowed with directions: Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days for interrogation; after interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000 each with two solvent sureties; petitioners shall appear as required, shall not leave India without permission, shall not commit similar offences, and the Investigating Officer may undertake recoveries as necessary; violation of conditions may lead to cancellation of bail.
Final Disposition: Bail granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Midhun Mukundan
Nandakumar P U
Vishnu T K
Akhil N P
Vishnu K M

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv M. Vivek

Counsels for Respondents

• Prasun S N.A.
• Retheesh
• Smt. Seena C., Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This bail application before the Kerala High Court concerns five petitioners accused in Crime No. 181/2024 of North Paravur Police Station. The accused face offences under sections 143, 144, 147, 323, 341, 324, 294(b), 307 and 506 read with 149 IPC, arising from an alleged unlawful assembly near Thonniakavu temple on 20 February 2024, during which the complainant and others were assaulted. The prosecution claims enmity due to a pending case and asserts that the accused formed an unlawful assembly to prosecute the common object, resulting in multiple injuries to the complainant and bystanders. The petitioners seek protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. with their bail; counsel for the petitioners points to a connected case, B.A. No. 2413/2024, in which bail was granted, and states that the matter is settled with affidavits from victims. However, the court notes that Section 307 is involved and that affidavits cannot be accepted at face value in such circumstances; nonetheless, after considering that there is a case and counter case, the court concludes that bail can be granted subject to stringent conditions. Citing the Supreme Court’s Chidambaram decision on bail as a rule rather than an exception, and guidance from Sushila Aggarwal on appropriate bail conditions, the judge grants bail with specific directions: cooperation with investigation, appearance within ten days, bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, no travel abroad without permission, avoidance of further offences, and the court’s authority to cancel bail if conditions are violated.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Section 143 IPCSection 144 IPCSection 147 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 341 IPCSection 324 IPCSection 294(b) IPCSection 307 IPCSection 506 r/w 149 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and the jail is the exception.
Opportunity to secure a fair trial.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that there is a case and counter case; in connected B.A.No.2413/2024 the Court has already granted bail; in this case the matter is settled with affidavits from victims. However, since Section 307 is involved, the affidavit cannot be accepted at face value; nonetheless, considering the existence of a case and counter case, bail can be granted with stringent conditions. The petitioners rely on the established bail principle that bail is the rule and the jail is the exception, citing the Supreme Court guidance in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and related jurisprudence.

Contentions of Respondents

The document does not provide a separately enumerated argument by the respondents; the hearing record notes the offences involved, including 307, and indicates that the connected case has already been granted bail; the prosecution’s position is reflected within the court’s consideration, with emphasis on balancing the accused’s rights against the seriousness of the offences and the need to safeguard the investigation and public order.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that bail is the rule and the jail is the exception, guiding the grant of bail with conditions.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited for bail-related principles and the permissible scope of investigations and conditions while on 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 Midhun Mukundan and others 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. 2421 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.181/2024 OF North Paravur Police Station,** ## **Ernakulam** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:** **1 MIDHUN MUKUNDAN AGED 32 YEARS S/O MUKUNDAN,EDATHARA (H), NANDHYATTUKUNNAM, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN - 683513** **2 NANDAKUMAR.P.U AGED 28 YEARS S/O UNNI.K.B,PUKKATPARAMBU (H), THONIYAKAVU, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN - 683513 3 VISHNU.T.K., AGED 31 YEARS S/O KRISHNAN, THEKKE COLONY, VALLUVALLY, KOONAMMAVU, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN - 683513 4 AKHIL.N.P. AGED 31 YEARS S/O PRADEEP,NAMBOORIPARAMBIL (H), KAITHARAM, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN - 683513** - **5 VISHNU.K.M. AGED 30 YEARS S/O MOHANAN,KALATHIPARAMBU (H), KAITHARAM, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN - 683513** **BY ADV M.VIVEK** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:** ## **1 STATE OF KERALA** B.A.No.2421 of 2024 2 **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031** **BY ADVS. PRASUN.S N.A.RETHEESH SMT.SEENA C., 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.2421 of 2024 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **--------------------------------** B.A.No.2421 of 2024 **------------------------------Dated this the 19[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 the accused in Crime No.181/2024 of North Paravur Police Station. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 323, 341, 324, 294(b), 307, 506 r/w 149 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that, there is a criminal case pending against the accused persons for assaulting the brother of the defacto complainant. The accused persons demanded to withdraw that case. But, that was no considered. On account of this enmity, on 20.02.24 at about 1:00 p.m, the accused persons formed themselves into B.A.No.2421 of 2024 4 an unlawful assembly and to prosecute the common object of that unlawful assembly, reached near Thonniakavu temple. The first accused fisted one Mr.Akhil. He also beat one Mr.Suneesh on his head using the iron pipe. On seeing this, the defacto complainant intervened to save him. The first accused beat him using the very same iron pipe. Third and fourth accused fisted him on several parts of his body and kicked him. One of his friends helped the defacto complainant to stand up and he was also assaulted by beating on his head by first and second accused persons. Third accused beat one Mr.Abhilash using iron rod. One Mr.Nishad was pushed down by the accused persons and he was also assaulted by fisting and kicking. The brother of the defacto complainant reached to take them to the hospital and 3[rd] accused waved knife against him and he sustained injuries and thereby the accused committed the afore said offences. B.A.No.2421 of 2024 5 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. It is submitted that there is case and counter case and in the connected case (B.A.No.2413/2024), this Court already granted bail. In this case also, the matter is settled and an affidavit is filed by the victims. But the offence under Section 307 is involved and therefore, this Court can not accept the affidavit. But considering the fact that there is case and counter case, the bail can be granted. Therefore, this Bail application can be allowed after imposing stringent conditions. 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 B.A.No.2421 of 2024 6 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 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 B.A.No.2421 of 2024 7 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; 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. 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 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]. B.A.No.2421 of 2024 8 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. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** DM B.A.No.2421 of 2024 9 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2421/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **ANNEXURE -A TRUE COPY OF THE HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM IN CRL.M.C.NO: 684 OF 2024 DATED 15-03-2024** **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE**