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. 3183 OF 2022
CRIME NO.501/2022 OF Kunnamkulam Police Station, Thrissur
PETITIONER/S:
BYJU C.K,AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. KUMARAN,
URNNAMKULAM, MATHUR POST,
KOZHALMANNAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678571
BY ADV SANTHEEP ANKARATH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION,
KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT
PIN - 680503
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI. SANAL P. RAJ PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-2-
BA No.3183 of 2022
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
======================================================
B.A.No. 3183 of 2022
=============================================================
Dated this the 6th day of May, 2022
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.501 of 2022 of Kunnamkulam Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 323 and 498A IPC.
3.The prosecution case is that the petitioner mentally and physically harassing the de facto complainant, who is his wife and thereby committed the offence.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is not correct. The counsel submitted that matrimonial offences are alleged and there is no -3- BA No.3183 of 2022 truth in the allegation. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any condition if this Court grant him bail. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. After hearing both sides, I think the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. The offences alleged are matrimonial offences. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the bail application can be allowed with 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 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 -4- BA No.3183 of 2022 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 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."-5-
BA No.3183 of 2022
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 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.-6-
BA No.3183 of 2022
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 suspected.
6. 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 das