High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-05-04Bail Granted

State of Kerala v. Akshay G.S., Akhilesh, Akhil S. Pillai

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 3360 OF 2022

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2022-05-04
Court Decision / Holding: This Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: 1) Petitioners shall be released on bail on executing bonds for Rs.50,000 each with two solvent sureties each, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court. 2) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as required and shall cooperate with the investigation. 3) Petitioners shall not leave India without prior permission of the jurisdictional court. 4) Petitioners shall not commit any offence similar to the one they are charged with or suspected of. 5) If any condition is violated, the jurisdictional court may cancel the bail, notwithstanding this order, with liberty to the prosecution and the victim to approach the court if non-compliance occurs.
Final Disposition: Bail Granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Akshay G.S.
Akhilesh
Akhil S. Pillai

Respondents

The State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
The Station House Officer, Pandalam Police Station, Pathanamthitta District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Manu Ramachandran
• M. Kiranlal
• R. Rajesh (Varkala)
• T. S. Sarath
• Sameer M. Nair
• Harsha
• SusAn Sam Geethu Krishnan

Counsels for Respondents

• Vipin Narayan (Senior Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by three accused in Crime No.475/2022 of Pandalam Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. The petitioners—Akshay G.S., Akhilesh, and Akhil S. Pillai—were arrested on 21.04.2022 and have been in custody since. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners and others formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, restrained the defacto complainant and criminally intimidated him near the NSS College, Pandalam on 20.04.2022, resulting in serious injuries. The defense contends that the incident did not occur as stated by the prosecution and points to annexures (A2 showing medical treatment records and A4 a mother's complaint) to suggest a factual dispute and to cast doubt on the version presented by the police. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations. The court recognized the possibility of disputes of fact but noted that the petitioners have been in custody since 21.04.2022 and that the incident occurred in a college setting where both sides reportedly sustained injuries. Citing the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, the court held that bail could be granted, given the progress of investigation and detention length. It imposed standard bail conditions: Rs.50,000 personal bond with two solvent sureties, appearance before the IO, cooperation with investigation, no travel abroad without court permission, no recurrence of the alleged offence, and contingencies for cancellation of bail if violated. This order follows the Supreme Court’s emphasis on fair trial and liberal bail in appropriate circumstances.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of CrPCSection 308 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners’ counsel contended that the incident did not occur as alleged and pointed to Annexures A2 (OP registration card) and A4 (a mother's complaint) to show possible discrepancies or factual disputes. They argued that several accused sustained injuries and sought treatment, indicating a lack of a straightforward, one-sided aggression. They emphasized the need for fair investigation and argued that detaining the accused in custody would impede their right to a fair trial given the ongoing investigation and the age/setting of the incident (college environment).

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor argued that the offences alleged are serious in nature, involving an unlawful assembly and serious injuries, and that bail should ordinarily be refused to protect victims, maintain public order, and ensure a fair investigation. However, the court acknowledged the detention duration and the ongoing nature of investigation, ultimately exercising its discretion to grant bail after balancing the competing interests.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited to reinforce the long-standing principle that bail is the rule and imprisonment is the exception, guiding the court’s approach to bail in this case in light of fair trial considerations.

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 State of Kerala v. Akshay G.S., Akhilesh, Akhil S. Pillai 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** **WEDNESDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 14TH VAISAKHA, 1944** **BAIL APPL. NO. 3360 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 820/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE** **OF FIRST CLASS , ADOOR** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2, 3 & 8:** 1 AKSHAY G.S AGED 19 YEARS S/O GIREESHKUMAR, SREEJA BHAVAN, NEAR ATHIYEKKAL THENGAMAN MADOM TEMPLE, PATTAZHI NORTH P.O, PATTAZHI VADAKKEKARA MURI, KADUVATHODU, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691522 2 AKHILESH AGED 20 YEARS S/O ARAVINDAKSHA KURUP, "SREESYLAM", THERUVUMUKKU, CHARUMMOODU P.O, CHUNAKARA SOUTH MURI, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT PIN - 690505 3 AKHIL S. PILLAI AGED 22 YEARS S/O SOMAN PILLAI, FROM POKKATTIL KIZHAKKETHIL VEEDU, NEAR KUDASSANADU VALIYAPPALLI, KURAMPALA SOUTH P.O, KURAMPALA VILLAGE, AND NOW RESIDING AT THUNDATHIL VEEDU, NEAR PANDALAM MAHADEVA TEMPLE, MUDIYOORKONAM P.O, THOTTAKONAM MURI, PANDALAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT , PIN - 689501 BY ADVS. MANU RAMACHANDRAN M.KIRANLAL R.RAJESH (VARKALA) T.S.SARATH SAMEER M NAIR HARSHA SUSAN SAM GEETHU KRISHNAN ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:** 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, B.A.No.3360 of 2022 2 PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689501 BY ADV. VIPIN NARAYAN, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.3360 of 2022 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.3360 of 2022 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4[th ] day of May, 2022 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.475 of 2022 of Pandalam Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. The above case is registered against the petitioners and others alleging offences punishable _inter alia_ under Section 308 IPC. Petitioners were arrested on 21.04.2022 and from that date onwards they are in custody. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners and others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons wrongfully restrained and criminally intimidated B.A.No.3360 of 2022 4 the defacto complainant near the Economics Department at NSS College, Pandalam on 20.04.2022 at 01.15 pm. It is alleged that the petitioners physically attacked the defacto complainant and he sustained serious injuries. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the incident is not happened as alleged by the prosecution. The counsel submitted that some of the accused also sustained injuries and they approached the hospital for treatment as evident by Annexure A2 OP registration card. The counsel also takes me through Annexure A4 which was a complaint filed by the mother of one of the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegation against the petitioners are very serious and the petitioners may not be B.A.No.3360 of 2022 5 released on bail at this stage. It is true that the allegation against the petitioners are very serious. But the petitioners are in custody from 21.04.2022 onwards. The incident happened in connection with a dispute in a college where the petitioners were students. The defacto complainant is also a student. There are allegation and counter allegation about the incident. This Court is not in a position to find out the truth at this stage. Considering the detention period and the progress in the investigation, I think the petitioners can be released on bail. 5. 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 B.A.No.3360 of 2022 6 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. 6. 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 required. The petitioners B.A.No.3360 of 2022 7 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/her 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. If any of the above B.A.No.3360 of 2022 8 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. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above conditions. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** DM B.A.No.3360 of 2022 9 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3360/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT DATED 21.04.2022 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CRIME NO.475 OF 2022 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OP REGISTRATION CARD AND CASUALTY OP TICKET OF 1ST AND 3RD PETITIONER ISSUED FROM NSS MEDICAL MISSION HOSPITAL, PANDALAM ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.04.2022 IN CRL.MP NO. 820/2022 OF JFMC, ADOOR ANNEXURE A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 23.04.2022 PREFERRED BY THE MOTHER OF ACCUSED NO.2 BEFORE THE DY.SP, ADOOR THROUGH EMAIL ## //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE