Premadasan vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 4926 Ker

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4926 Ker
Judgement Date : 4 May, 2022

Kerala High Court

Premadasan vs State Of Kerala on 4 May, 2022

                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. 2476 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

            PREMADASAN
            AGED 42 YEARS
            SON OF CHAKUTTY, KALATHIL NJALIL HOUSE,
            CHALISSERY, PERUMANNUR, PALAKKAD,, PIN - 679536

            BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW



RESPONDENT/S:

            STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
            PIN - 682031

            BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR



OTHER PRESENT:

            SMT.SREEJA.V, SR.PP




     THIS   BAIL   APPLICATION    HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
04.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 2476 OF 2022
                                    2

                         P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                       --------------------------------
                           B.A.No.2476 of 2022
                       -------------------------------
                    Dated this the 4th 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.79/2022 of

Chalissery Police Station. The above case is registered against the

petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 447, 324 and

308 of the IPC. Originally the case was registered under Section

447 and 324 of the IPC and the offence under Section 308 of the

IPC was added subsequently.

3. The prosecution case is that on 26.02.2022 at about

21.00 hours, the accused trespassed into the house of the defacto

complainant and attacked the defacto complainant with a steel pipe

causing injuries.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the entire

allegations are accepted, the offence under Section 308 of the IPC BAIL APPL. NO. 2476 OF 2022

is not made out. The Counsel submitted that the offence under

Section 308 of the IPC is subsequently added only to see that the

petitioner is behind the bar. The Counsel submitted that the alleged

offence occurred on 26.02.2022 and the FIS was filed only on

05.03.2022. The Counsel submitted that there is some dispute

regarding a family burial ground between the petitioner's family

and the defacto complainant's family. The Public Prosecutor

seriously opposed the bail application. But the Public Prosecutor

submitted that if this Court is granting bail, stringent conditions

may be imposed. It is true that the allegations against the

petitioner are very serious. It is also true that there is some delay

in lodging the FIS. That alone is not a reason to grant anticipatory

bail to the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner and the defacto

complainant are relatives. Section 308 of IPC is added

subsequently. According to the petitioner, there is some family

dispute regarding a burial ground. Considering the facts and

circumstances of the case I think custodial interrogation of the

petitioner may not be necessary in this case. BAIL APPL. NO. 2476 OF 2022

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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 2476 OF 2022

(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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 2476 OF 2022

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