Vijesh V.K and Jithin V.K v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Judgment Date: 2022-05-06
Court Decision / Holding: Bail application allowed; petitioners released on bail on bond of Rs.50,000 each with two solvent sureties for equal amounts, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court. They must appear before IO for interrogation, cooperate with the investigation, not induce or threaten any witness, not leave India without court permission, not commit similar offences, and not enter the Vadakara jurisdiction for 60 days or until final report (whichever is earlier). They must furnish residential details and contact numbers to the court and IO. Violations can lead to cancellation of bail.
Final Disposition: Bail granted; the petitioners are to be released on bail with specified conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vijesh V.K
Jithin V.K

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Public Prosecutor
Smt Sreeja V - Sr. P.P.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• T.K. Sandeep
• Arjun Sreedhar
• Arun Krishna Dhan

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor
• Smt Sreeja V

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Bail Application under Section 439 CrPC concerns two petitioners, Vijesh V.K. and Jithin V.K., accused in Crime No.280 of 2022 of Vadakara Police Station, charged with offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioners assert that the incident on 15.03.2022 at about 9.30 pm did not occur as alleged and that they are neighbours of the defacto complainant; they have been in custody since 16.03.2022. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, highlighting the seriousness of the injuries to the complainant’s husband and the potential for disruption if bail is granted. The court notes the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement (2019) (16) SCALE 870, and weighs the facts and circumstances, including the petitioners’ custody since 16.03.2022 and proximity to the complainant. On balancing, the court allows the bail with conditions: Rs.50,000 bail bond with two solvent sureties for equal amounts; appearance before Investigating Officer as required; not to induce witnesses or tamper with facts; not to leave India without permission; shall not commit similar offences; shall not enter the Vadakara jurisdiction for 60 days or until final report, with residence details and contact number to be provided to the court and IO. Violation may lead to cancellation of bail. The order underscores fair trial and cooperation with the investigation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 CrPCSection 452 IPCSection 323 IPCSection 324 IPCSection 307 r/w 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
Basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that the alleged incident did not happen as alleged; they are neighbours of the defacto complainant and have been in custody since 16.03.2022. They argued that bail should be granted to ensure fair trial and that custodial status does not justify denial given the nature of the accusations and the time already spent in custody.

Contentions of Respondents

The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and the injuries sustained by the complainant. It was argued that allowing bail could disrupt investigation and encourage improper influence, given the proximity of the petitioners to the complainant and the late-night timing of the alleged offence.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited to support the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and to justify grant of bail in this case.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 16TH VAISAKHA, 1944** **BAIL APPL. NO. 3397 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 VIJESH V.K AGED 32 YEARS KINARULLA PARAYULLA PARAMBATH HOUSE, CHEMMARATHUR P.O, ARYANOOR, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673104 2 JITHIN V.K AGED 28 YEARS VADAKKE KANDIYIL HOUSE, CHEMMARATHURP.O ARYANOOR, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673104 BY ADVS. T.K.SANDEEP ARJUN SREEDHAR ARUN KRISHNA DHAN ## **RESPONDENT:** STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT SREEJA V - SR .P.P THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.3397 of 2022 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.3397 of 2022 ------------------------------Dated this the 6[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.280 of 2022 of Vadakara Police Station. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 324 & 307 r/w 34 IPC. 3.The prosecution case is that on 15.03.2022 at about 9.30 pm, the accused trespassed to the house and attempted to murder the defacto complainant's husband. He sustained serious injuries. The petitioners were arrested on 16.03.2022. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the incident has not happened as alleged by Prosecution. The B.A.No.3397 of 2022 3 Counsel submitted that the defacto complainant and party trespassed into the house of the petitioners. The Counsel submitted that the petitioners are in custody from 15.03.2022. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners are neighbours of the defacto complainant and if this Court grant bail to the petitioners, they will create further trouble. The Public Prosecutor also submitted that serious injuries are sustained by the injured and the time of offence is 9.30 pm. It is true that the allegations against the petitioners are very serious. But the petitioners are in custody from 16.03.2022. Since the petitioners are neighbours to the defacto complainant, till investigation is over, the petitioners shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of Vadakara Police Station. With the above condition, I think the bail application can be allowed, considering the fact that the petitioners are in custody from 16.03.2022 onwards. B.A.No.3397 of 2022 4 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 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) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. The petitioners shall appear before the B.A.No.3397 of 2022 5 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/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. Petitioners shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of Vadakara Police Station for a period of 60 days or till final report is filed, whichever is B.A.No.3397 of 2022 6 earlier. The petitioners shall furnish the phone number and the details of the place where they are going to reside during the above period to the jurisdictional Court and to the investigating officer. 6. 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. 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** Nsd B.A.No.3397 of 2022 7 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3397/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure I A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2022 IN CRL.M.C. 522/2022 BY THE SESSIONS COURT KOZHIKODE Annexure II A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.04.2022 IN CRL.M.C.607/2022 BY THE SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE B.A.No.3397 of 2022 8 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3397/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure I A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2022 IN CRL.M.C. 522/2022 BY THE SESSIONS COURT KOZHIKODE Annexure II A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.04.2022 IN CRL.M.C.607/2022 BY THE SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE