IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 14TH VAISAKHA, 1944
BAIL APPL. NO. 2198 OF 2022
Crime No.175/2022 of Cherpu Police Station.
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 ABHILASH E.S
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O SHANMUGHAN, EDAPPULLY HOUSE
VENGINISSERY, PARALAM P.O THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680575
2 ABHIJITH KANNAN
AGED 20 YEARS
S/O KANNAN, THALONDA HOUSE, VENGINISSERY, PARALAM P.O,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680575
3 SARATH C.P
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O PRAKASAN, CHERIYAVEETIL HOUSE, VENGINISSERY,
PARALAM P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680575
BY ADVS.
K.S.ARUN KUMAR
RAJEE P MATHEWS
AMRUTHA K P
SRUTHY UNNIKRISHNAN
AISWARYA E J VETTIKOMPIL
RESPONDENT/STATE
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR- VIPIN NARAYAN
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 2198 OF 2022
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.2198 of 2020
-------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of May, 2022
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The petitioners are accused in Crime No.175/2022 of Cherpu Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 324, 326, 294 (b) and 506 (ii) read with 34 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 20.02.2022 at 9.20 pm, the accused in furtherance of their common intention attacked the de-facto complainant and one Sajith at a road in front of SNDP office at Koottalakkunnu and voluntarily caused grievous hurt and hurt to them by beating them with iron pipe.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public BAIL APPL. NO. 2198 OF 2022 3 Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecution case is not correct. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that a counter case is also registered as Crime No.176/2022. The counsel further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grants them bail. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the recovery is to be effected and hence the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are necessary. It is true that the allegations against the petitioners are serious. According to the petitioners, the incident is not happened as alleged by the prosecution. There are two different versions about the same incident. This court is not in a position to decide about the correctness of the same while considering a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think this bail can be allowed on stringent conditions.
5. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble BAIL APPL. NO. 2198 OF 2022 4 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. Recently the Apex Court in Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2021(5)KHC 353) considered the point in detail. The relevant paragraph of the above judgment is extracted hereunder.
"12. We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it.
(Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others (1994 KHC 189: (1994) 4 SCC 260: 1994 (1) KLT 919: 1994 (2) KLJ 97: AIR 1994 SC 1349: 1994 CriLJ 1981)) If arrest BAIL APPL. NO. 2198 OF 2022 5 is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused."
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. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation.
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned.
BAIL APPL. NO. 2198 OF 2022 6
3. The petitioners shall appear before the 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. 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.
6. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays till final report is filed.
7. If any of the above conditions are BAIL APPL. NO. 2198 OF 2022 7 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 any of the above conditions are violated.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE hmh