IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 16TH VAISAKHA, 1944
BAIL APPL. NO. 2709 OF 2022
PETITIONER/ACCUSED
PAVITHRAN M.G
AGED 21 YEARS
MANEZHATHU, AROOR P.O, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688534
BY ADVS.
M.SANTHI (K/868/2011)
G.RANJU MOHAN
RESPONDENT/
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. VIPIN NARAYANAN
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 2709 OF 2022
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.2709 of 2022
-------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of May, 2022
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Petitioner is the 6th accused in Crime No.249 of 2022 of Aroor Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 324, 354 and 308 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 23.03.2022 at 1.00 p.m., the petitioner and other accused due to previous enmity, in prosecution of their common object, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant's BAIL APPL. NO. 2709 OF 2022 3 brother. It is further alleged that the 3 rd accused fisted on the nose of de facto complainant and the 2 nd accused beat the de facto complainant with an iron road on the left forehead. It is alleged that the 1 st accused used knife. There are other overt acts to the accused.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the 6th accused and the other accused are already arrested. The counsel submitted that there is no serious allegation against the petitioner. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that if this Court is granting bail, the petitioner may be directed to cooperate with the investigation. After hearing both sides, I think the bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The main allegation is against other accused and it is submitted that the other accused is already granted bail. In such BAIL APPL. NO. 2709 OF 2022 4 circumstances there is no reason to deny bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 2709 OF 2022 5 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 2709 OF 2022 6 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 suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
6. The petitioner shall appear before the BAIL APPL. NO. 2709 OF 2022 7 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. 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