AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.219 of 2022 of Kattakada police station, Thiruvananthapuram district. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and Section 9B of the Explosives act.
The prosecution case is that with an intention to create havoc, on 23.03.2022 at about 4.30 pm, the 1st accused, who came as pillion rider in the bike of the 2nd respondent threw a petrol bomb at the north-eastern corner of the waiting shed situated near Government School, Paruthippally Kuttichal and thereby panicked the people by creating chaos. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions in the bail application. The counsel submitted that the petitioner was only the rider of the motorcycle and he has not committed any offence. The Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.
This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. This bail application is pending before this Court from 2022 onwards. There is an interim order directing the police authorities not to arrest the petitioner. That order is in force. It is true that the allegations against the petitioner and other accused are very serious. But the main overt act is against the 1st accused. That will not absolve the liability of the petitioner because he was riding the motorcycle. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary. The petitioner can be directed to appear before the investigating officer, so that the investigating officer can interrogate the petitioner and thereafter, conclude the investigation in accordance with law. There can be stringent conditions while granting bail.
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.
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:
Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;
After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, she 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;
Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner 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;
Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court;
Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected;
Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 10 a.m till final report is filed.
If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.