High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-04-16Bail allowed to petitioners under Section 438 C...

null

Case / Petition Number:B.A. No.3233 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2024-04-16
Court Decision / Holding: Bail application allowed under Section 438 CrPC with stringent conditions: (i) petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days for interrogation; (ii) if IO proposes arrest, petitioners to furnish bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties; (iii) petitioners to appear for interrogation as required and cooperate with the investigation; (iv) petitioners to not leave India without court permission; (v) refrain from committing similar offences; (vi) appear before IO on all Mondays and Fridays at 10 AM until final report; (vii) potential cancellation of bail for violation; and (viii) IO may investigate and recover information while petitioners remain on bail as per Supreme Court guidance in Sushila Aggarwal. The order notes the guiding principle that bail is the norm and control of the investigation with strict supervision is permissible.
Final Disposition: Bail allowed to petitioners under Section 438 CrPC with stringent conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abhijith
Justin
Bastine
Jasmin Tinu
Gladys
Thankachan

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sojan Micheal, Advocate

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt.Seena C., Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala bail application concerns six accused persons (Abhijith, Justin, Bastine, Jasmin Tinu, Gladys, and Thankachan) in Crime No.264/2024 of Karimkunnam Police Station, Idukki, under Section 438 CrPC. The petition seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with offences including IPC sections 144, 148, 427, 294(b), 323, 324, 447, 451, 506(ii) and 354 r/w 149, alleged to have occurred on 23.03.2024 when the petitioners and others allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, trespassed into the defacto complainant’s house with deadly weapons, and subjected him and his mother to assault, obscene language, and threats. The prosecution asserts that the 1st accused attacked with a knife, the 2nd with an iron rod, damage to a car and window glass, and that multiple accused abused and threatened the complainant. Counsel for petitioners submits that the sole non-bailable offence is under Section 354 IPC and, even if all allegations are accepted, no offence under 354 IPC is made out; hence, bail should be considered with conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, emphasizing seriousness of offences and potential interference with witnesses. After hearing, the Court deems custodial interrogation unnecessary and grants bail on stringent conditions, reiterating the rule that bail is the norm and jail the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Sushila Aggarwal. The order directs appearance before the IO within ten days, bond and sureties, travel restrictions, ongoing cooperation, and regular IO appearances until final report, with jurisdictional powers retained for further action.

Provisions of Law Cited

CrPC Section 438IPC Sections 144, 148, 427, 294(b), 323, 324, 447, 451, 506(ii), 354 r/w 149

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners’ counsel argued that the alleged non-bailable offence is only under Section 354 IPC, and even accepting all allegations, a conviction under 354 IPC is not made out; apart from this, other offences are either bailable or subject to standard bail standards. The request is for pre-arrest bail with stringent conditions to ensure cooperation with investigation and to prevent prejudice to the prosecution, while recognizing the principle that bail is the norm. The defense stressed that custodial interrogation would be unnecessary at this stage and that the accused are ready to comply with conditions and appear before the IO as required.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, highlighting the gravity and multiplicity of offences (including violent acts and threats) and the likelihood of interference with witnesses, arguing that bail would not be appropriate given the allegations and the potential for repeat offences.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Used to justify that bail is the rule and imprisonment is an exception, supporting grant of bail with conditions.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that investigation and recoveries can be pursued even while on bail, guiding the court’s monitoring approach.

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 null 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** **TUESDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 27TH CHAITHRA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 3233 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.264/2024 OF KARINKUNNAM POLICE STATION, IDUKKI** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS: 1 TO 6:** - **1 ABHIJITH, AGED 27 YEARS** - **S/O SURESH, POOVELITHAZHE HOUSE, MADUKKAKUNNU P.O, ELIKULAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686577** - **2 JUSTIN, AGED 26 YEARS S/O GLADIES, MULLACKALLSSERY HOUSE, , MADUKKAKUNNU P.O, ELIKULAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686577** - **3 BASTINE, AGED 27 YEARS S/O GLADIES, MULLACKALLSSERY HOUSE, MADUKKAKUNNU P.O, ELIKULAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686577** - **4 JASMIN TINU, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O LATE TINU THANKACHAN, INCHANANICKAL HOUSE, PURAPPUZHA P.O, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685583** - **5 GLADIES, AGED 54 YEARS S/O AYYAPPAN, MULLACKALLSSERY HOUSE, MADUKKAKUNNU P.O, ELIKULAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686577** - **6 THANKACHAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O AUGUSTINE, INCHANANICKAL HOUSE, PURAPUZHA P.O, KARIMKUNNAM, THDOUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685583** - **BY ADV. SOJAN MICHEAL** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA** - **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** **BY ADV. SMT.SEENA C, 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.3233 of 2024** **2** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **--------------------------------------B.A. No. 3233 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 the accused in Crime No.264/2024 of Karimkunnam Police Station. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 144, 148, 427, 294(b), 323, 324, 447, 451, 506(ii), 354 r/w 149 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioners and two other unknown persons in prosecution of their common object formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, on 23.03.2024 at about 5.30 P.M., it is **B.A. No.3233 of 2024** **3** alleged that they criminally trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant with deadly weapons and uttering obscene words. Further it is stated that the 1[st] accused attacked the defacto complainant with a knife and the defacto complainant tried to stop him and got injured his fingers. The 2[nd] accused attacked him with an iron rod, caused injury to his left eye, 3[rd] accused broke the window glass and damaged the car and gate of the defacto complainant, 4[th] accused abused him in filthy language, 5[th] accused threatened to kill him and accused Nos.3, 5 to 8 are also assaulted the defacto complainant and his mother. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the aforesaid offences. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the only non bailable offence is under Section 354 IPC. Even if the entire allegations are accepted, no **B.A. No.3233 of 2024** **4** offence under Section 354 IPC is made out, is the case. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the Bail application. 6. After hearing both sides, I think this Bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Whether the offence under Section 354 IPC is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case is a matter to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. For that purpose, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary. After imposing stringent conditions, this Bail application can be allowed. 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 **B.A. No.3233 of 2024** **5** 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 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 **B.A. No.3233 of 2024** **6** 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; 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 appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 10 A.M. till final report is filed. 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 **B.A. No.3233 of 2024** **7** 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 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.3233 of 2024** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3233/2024** **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **ANNEXURE 1** **COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.04.2024 IN CRL.M.C NO: 255/2024 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE**