Kerala High Court
Sujatha P 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. 9679 OF 2021
CRIME NO.2127/2021 OF Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta
PETITIONER/ACCUSED
SUJATHA P.,
AGED 48 YEARS
D/O. KUNJIKUTTY, KOCHIRAKUZHIYIL VEEDU,
ELAMANNOOR, ENADIMANGALAM VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADV K.V.ANIL KUMAR
RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM , 682 031.
SR.PP. ADV.VIPIN NARAYAN
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 9679 OF 2021
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.9679 of 2021
-------------------------------
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 2nd accused in Crime No.2127 of
2021 of Adoor Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioner and others alleging
offence punishable under Section 143, 144, 148, 452,
326A, 324 r/w Section 149 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 06.12.2021 at
about 08.40 p.m, accused 1 and 2 along with four other
identified persons unlawfully assembled and trespassed
into the house of one Renjith Bahavanam with deadly
weapons like iron rod and caused injury to his head by
using unknown weapon. It is also alleged that the
BAIL APPL. NO. 9679 OF 2021
petitioner and other accused committed offence under
Section 326A IPC.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
serious allegation is against accused nos. 1 and 3. The
counsel submitted that the incident happened on
06.12.2021 and the incident is not happened as alleged by
the prosecution. The counsel submitted that the
investigation is also in the final stage. The Public
Prosecution seriously opposed the bail application. The
Public Prosecutor submitted that if this Court is granting
bail, stringent conditions may be imposed. It is true that
allegation against the petitioner are very serious. But it is a
fact that the alleged incident happened on 06.12.2021 and
even now the prosecution was not able to arrest the
petitioner. The investigation of the case is almost over. It is
true that the petitioner and the de-facto complainant are
neighbours. In such situation to avoid further conflict, there
can be a direction to the petitioner not to enter the
BAIL APPL. NO. 9679 OF 2021
jurisdictional limit of Adoor Police Station for a period of 90
days or till investigation is over. With the above conditions,
this bail application can be allowed.
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.
BAIL APPL. NO. 9679 OF 2021
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
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)
BAIL APPL. NO. 9679 OF 2021
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. Petitioner shall not enter the
BAIL APPL. NO. 9679 OF 2021
jurisdictional limit of Adoor Police Station for a
period of 90 days or till final report is filed. The
petitioner shall give the telephone number and
the details of his address to the Investigating
Officer within four days from today.
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
