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. 3403 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 SHEMEER
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O.SIDHIQ, PUTHENPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE,
ERUMAPETTY, KARIYANOOR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680584
2 VISHNU ALIAS VISHNU PRADEEP
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.PRADEEP, CHEERATH HOUSE,
ERUMAPETTY, KARIYANOOR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680584
3 SREEKANTH
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.SADANANDAN, OTTAVIL HOUSE,
ERUMAPETTY, KARIYANOOR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680584
4 DEVAK
AGED 18 YEARS
S/O.SUBASH, VADAKKAN HOUSE,
ERUMAPETTY, KARIYANOOR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680584
BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
ADV SANAL P.RAJ- P.P
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.3403/2022
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3403 of 2022
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 06th day of May, 2022
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.195 of 2022 of Erumapetty Police Station registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 308 and 506(i) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioners were arrested on 28.03.2022 and they are in custody.
3. The prosecution case is that on 27.03.2022 at 9 pm, accused Nos.1 to 8 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at Erumapetty Umikunnu Colony and in prosecution of their common object to attack the defacto complainant due to their previous enmity, 1st accused wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, criminally intimidated him, 4 th accused hit and kicked him, 5th and 6th accused restrained him by catching hold of his hands, 2nd and 3rd accused hit him on his chest, 2 nd accused hit him with a punching block on his nose and 1 st B.A.No.3403/2022 3 accused beat him on his head with an iron pipe. Accused Nos.7 and 8 also restrained the defacto complainant and beat and hit on various parts of his body. The petitioners were arrested on 28.03.2022.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in custody from 28.03.2022 onwards. The counsel submitted that the defacto complainant and his men were the aggressors. The counsel also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any condition if this Court grant them bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners are involved in other criminal cases also and therefore this Court may not grant them bail. It is true that the allegations against the petitioners are very serious. But the petitioners are in custody from 28.03.2022. Simply because the petitioners are involved in other cases, that alone is not a reason to reject the bail application. The Apex Court observed that merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, claim of bail cannot be rejected (Moulana Muhammed Amir Rashadi and Others v. State of U.P. and others [2012 (2) SCC 382]). But there can be a B.A.No.3403/2022 4 direction to the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer till final report is filed.
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. 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 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.
2. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The B.A.No.3403/2022 5 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
3. The petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
4. The 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.
5. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at 10 am, till final report is filed.
6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
B.A.No.3403/2022
6
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3403/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexue1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN
CRL.M.C.NO.466/2022 OF THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR DATED 26.04.2022