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. 1185 OF 2022
PETITIONER/ACCUSED
VINAYAKA RAM.M
AGED 34 YEARS
SON OF PARASSURAM, MANKUNITHAZHAM QUARTERS,
PAINGOTTUPURAM, KUTTIKATTOOR, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673008
BY ADVS.
T.G.RAJENDRAN
T.R. TARIN
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT :
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
TOWN POLICE STATION,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673501
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SREEJA V
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 1185 OF 2022
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.1185 of 2022
-------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of May, 2022
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.803 of 2021 of Kozhikode Town Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the Scheduled Caste Development Officer attached to Municipal Corporation has lodged a complaint before the police alleging that the accused had availed loan from Chelavoor Co-operative Bank by filing before the said bank, a forged certificate purported to have been BAIL APPL. NO. 1185 OF 2022 3 issued by the Scheduled Caste Development Officer. It is alleged that the accused had submitted the same by forging the signature and seal of the Scheduled Caste Development Officer, Kozhikode. Hence the petitioner committed the offence.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are not committed. The counsel also submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out. The counsel submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the case itself is registered based on a complaint filed by the Scheduled Caste Development Officer. Very serious allegations are there. The petitioner forged the official seal also. The Public Prosecutor submitted that this Court may not release the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is true that allegation against BAIL APPL. NO. 1185 OF 2022 4 the petitioner are very serious. But after going through the facts and circumstances of the case, I think custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary in this case. There can be stringent conditions to the petitioner while granting 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 1185 OF 2022 5 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 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 petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation.
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating BAIL APPL. NO. 1185 OF 2022 6 Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he 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.
3. 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
4. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or BAIL APPL. NO. 1185 OF 2022 7 suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
6. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays till final report is filed.
7. 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.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE hmh