Sajith and Sudheesh v. State of Kerala

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 19TH VAISAKHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 3184 OF 2023 ``` ``` CRIME NO.239/2023 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.10 & 11:`** ``` 1SAJITH AGED 23 YEARS S/O SAJI,PUVANNAMMOOTTIL VILAYIL HOUSE, MULAYAMKODE, KURUMBUKARA P. O, ENADIMANGALAM,ADOOR, PIN - 689695 2SUDHEESH AGED 25 YEARS S/OJAYACHANDRAN,SUDHABHAVANOM, KATTUKALA COLONY,MAROOR P.O, ENADIMANGALAM,ADOOR., PIN - 691524 BY ADVS. MANSOOR.B.H. SAKEENA BEEGUM ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2STATION HOUSE OFFICER ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN – 691523 ``` ``` PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. TV NEEMA ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.. No.3184 of 2023 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **-------------------------------B.A.No.3184 of 2023** **------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of May, 2023** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code . 2. The petitioners are accused in Crime No.239/2023 of Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 143,144,147,148,427,449 and 302 r/w 149 of IPC. The offence under Section 11(1)(a) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is also alleged. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 19.2.2023, at about 10.45 p.m. at Ozhukupara in Enadimangalam 3 B.A.No.. No.3184 of 2023 village, accused persons in prosecution of their common object, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons such as stick, iron rods and chopper and trespassed into the courtyard of Vadkkecharuvil house, wherein the deceased Sujatha was resided. It is also alleged the accused demolished the doors and windows with iron rods and sticks. Thereafter, the accused persons trespassed into the house by breaking open the kitchen door of the house with a chopper and caused injury to the dog which was tied inside the room by beating and hacking. It is also alleged that the accused attacked the deceased Sujatha with dangerous weapon on her head. The deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to injury on 20.2.2023. It is also alleged that the accused persons vandalized the furniture and other B.A.No.. No.3184 of 2023 4 household articles kept inside the house and thrown the same into a nearby well. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the main allegation is against accused Nos. 1 to 5. The petitioners are accused Nos.10 and 11. It is also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grants them bail and also submitted that accused No.14 was already released on bail as per order dated 13.4.2023 in B.A No.2798/2023. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that very serious allegations are levelled against the petitioners and the petitioners may not be released on bail. B.A.No.. No.3184 of 2023 5 5. It is true that the prosecution case is serious and the manner in which the accused committed the offence is cruel. But, the petitioners herein are concerned, the allegation is only to the effect that they took the furniture from the victim’s house and put it into a nearby well. There is no allegation that the petitioners assaulted or attacked the deceased. Moreover, accused No.14 is already released on bail by this Court as per order dated 13.4.2023 in B.A. No.2798/2023. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the bail application can be allowed on 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** B.A.No.. No.3184 of 2023 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **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: 1. Petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when B.A.No.. No.3184 of 2023 7 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. 3. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. 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. 5. The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays at 11.a.m. till final report is filed. 6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the B.A.No.. No.3184 of 2023 8 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, JUDGE** rmm