Jobin vs State Of Kerala

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J

This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code.

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.227 of 2022 of the Ayiroor Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offence punishable under Section 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 326 and 506(i) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 26.04.2022.

The prosecution case is that, on account of previous enmity that the de-facto complainant had given complaint to the police regarding the sale of narcotic drugs in the vicinity of school, on 31.03.2022 at about 10.30 pm, the accused persons manhandled the de-facto complainant and threw a big rock on the face of the de-facto complainant causing multiple fracture to the facial bones of the de-facto complainant. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 26.04.2022 onwards. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is only aged 18 years and studying Plus Two course. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case and counter case where both sides sustained injuries. A counter case is also registered. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that very serious injuries are sustained to the injured in this case. But it is a fact that the petitioner is in custody from 26.04.2022. The petitioner is aged only 18 years. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I think the continued detention of the petitioner is not necessary especially in the light of fact that the petitioner is only aged 18 years.

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 in as much 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 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 to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

The 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 him/her 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 he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

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. 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.