Kerala High Court
Vinayamohan.S 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. 2642 OF 2022
CRIME NO.347/2022 OF East Kallada Police Station, Kollam
PETITIONER:
VINAYAMOHAN.S.
AGED 36 YEARS
PULIKKALAZHIKATH HOUSE, EAST KALLADA.P.O.,
KOICKAL MURI, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691502
BY ADVS.
C.A.CHACKO
C.M.CHARISMA
ALEKH THOMAS
BABU V.P.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.SMT.NEEMA T.V., SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.2642/2022
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A.No.2642 of 2022
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 04th day of May, 2022
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of
Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.347/2022 of
East Kallada Police Station, Kollam. The above case is
registered against the petitioner alleging offences
punishable under Sections 354 and 354(A) of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner
outraged the modesty of the defacto complainant.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the allegation against the petitioner is false. The
counsel submitted that on 22.03.2022 at 3.45 pm, the
B.A.No.2642/2022
defacto complainant and her father trespassed into the
property of the petitioner by breaking open the gate and
they brutally attacked the petitioner with a knife and
vettukathi. The petitioner lodged a complaint before the
Police as evident by Annexure-A1. It is submitted that
thereafter, as a counter blast, the present complaint is filed.
The counsel also takes me through Annexures A1 to A4
produced along with the bail application. The Public
Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. This
Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor. This Court also considered Annexures
A1 to A5 produced along with the bail application. There
are allegations and counter allegations about the incident.
This Court is not in a position to decide the correctness of
the allegation at this stage. But, considering the facts and
circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioner
may not be necessary. In the light of the facts and
circumstances of the case, I think the Bail Application can
be allowed on stringent conditions.
B.A.No.2642/2022
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
B.A.No.2642/2022
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
B.A.No.2642/2022
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.
4. The petitioner shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on all Mondays and
B.A.No.2642/2022
Fridays at 10 am, till final report is filed.
6. The 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.
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
JV JUDGE
B.A.No.2642/2022
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2642/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 22/3/2022
ISSUED FROM EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF OP TICKET ISSUED FROM TALUK
HOSPITAL, KUNDARA DATED 22/3/2022
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 25/3/2022
ISSUED FROM EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION
Annexure A4 TRUE CITIZEN COPY OF FIR IN CRIME
NO.355/2022 OF EAST KALLADA POLICE
STATION DATED 26/3/2022
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 13/6/2011
MADE BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
(RURAL), KOLLAM
