Nikhilraj R & Rahulraj R v. State of Kerala

## **`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. 3440 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.0394/2024 OF THALAYOLAPARAMBU POLICE STATION, ``` ## **`Kottayam`** ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSEDS:`** ``` 1NIKHILRAJ R AGED 22 YEARS S/O RAJESH KOCHUPURAKKAL, EDAVATTOM P.O KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686605 ``` ``` 2RAHULRAJ R AGED 25 YEARS S/O RAJESH KOCHUPURAKKAL, EDAVATTOM P.O KOTTAYAM - 686605, PIN - 686605 ``` ``` BY ADVS. LEEJOY MATHEW.V. SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` SRI.PRASANT MP, PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.3440 of 2024 2 ## **`P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.`** ``` ------------------------------------------- B.A.No.3440 of 2024 ``` ``` ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19[th] day of 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 two among the accused in Crime No.394 of 2024 of Thalayolaparambu Police Station, Kottayam District. The above case is registered against the petitioners and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 363, 365 & 368 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. ``` ``` 3. The prosecution case is that, a verbal tussle happened between the petitioners and the de facto complainant in a cinema theater and due to the said enmity, the petitioners along with the ``` B.A.No.3440 of 2024 3 ``` other accused followed the de facto complainant on 05-04-2024 at about 9.30 P.M, and accused nos. 1 and 2 shouted at the de facto complainant with obscene words and made him mentally helpless. It is also alleged that accused nos.3 and 4 beaten the de facto complainant with their hands over his head and they together took him in a bike of the accused nos.1 and 2, and hide the de facto complainant in chunkam area saying that the de facto complainant will be released only if his friends or family members come to the said place. ``` ``` 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence under Section 363 IPC is made out. It is also submitted that the common friends of the ``` B.A.No.3440 of 2024 4 ``` de facto complainant and the petitioners want to settle the issue between them, and the de facto complainant himself came along with accused nos.3 and 4 to the place of the petitioners to settle the matter with each other. Hence, there is no offence made out. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Bail application. ``` ``` 5.After hearing both sides, I think the bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. I do not want to make any observation about the merit of the case. The petitioners are aged only 22 and 25 years, respectively. There is no criminal antecedence alleged against them. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. There can be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the ``` B.A.No.3440 of 2024 5 ``` investigating officer twice in a week till final report is filed. ``` ``` 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 this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: ``` ``` i. Petitioners shall appear before the ``` B.A.No.3440 of 2024 6 ``` Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation; ``` ``` ii. 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 each to the satisfaction of the officer concerned; ``` ``` iii. 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; ``` B.A.No.3440 of 2024 7 ``` iv. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court; ``` ``` v. 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; ``` ``` vi. The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 10.00 AM till final report is filed. ``` ``` vii. 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 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]. ``` B.A.No.3440 of 2024 8 ``` viii. 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 ``` ``` sp/19/04/2024 ```