Kerala High Court
Abhilash E.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. 2198 OF 2022
Crime No.175/2022 of Cherpu Police Station.
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 ABHILASH E.S
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O SHANMUGHAN, EDAPPULLY HOUSE
VENGINISSERY, PARALAM P.O THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680575
2 ABHIJITH KANNAN
AGED 20 YEARS
S/O KANNAN, THALONDA HOUSE, VENGINISSERY, PARALAM P.O,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680575
3 SARATH C.P
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O PRAKASAN, CHERIYAVEETIL HOUSE, VENGINISSERY,
PARALAM P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680575
BY ADVS.
K.S.ARUN KUMAR
RAJEE P MATHEWS
AMRUTHA K P
SRUTHY UNNIKRISHNAN
AISWARYA E J VETTIKOMPIL
RESPONDENT/STATE
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR- 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. 2198 OF 2022
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.2198 of 2020
-------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of May, 2022
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of
Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The petitioners are accused in Crime No.175/2022
of Cherpu Police Station. The above case is registered
against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under
Section 341, 323, 324, 326, 294 (b) and 506 (ii) read with
34 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 20.02.2022 at
9.20 pm, the accused in furtherance of their common
intention attacked the de-facto complainant and one Sajith
at a road in front of SNDP office at Koottalakkunnu and
voluntarily caused grievous hurt and hurt to them by
beating them with iron pipe.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public
BAIL APPL. NO. 2198 OF 2022
Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the prosecution case is not correct. The counsel for the
petitioners submitted that a counter case is also registered
as Crime No.176/2022. The counsel further submitted that
the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this
Court grants them bail. The Public Prosecutor seriously
opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor
submitted that the recovery is to be effected and hence the
custodial interrogation of the petitioners are necessary. It is
true that the allegations against the petitioners are serious.
According to the petitioners, the incident is not happened
as alleged by the prosecution. There are two different
versions about the same incident. This court is not in a
position to decide about the correctness of the same while
considering a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think
this bail can be allowed on 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
BAIL APPL. NO. 2198 OF 2022
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 (1) KLT 919: 1994 (2)
KLJ 97: AIR 1994 SC 1349: 1994 CriLJ 1981)) If arrest
BAIL APPL. NO. 2198 OF 2022
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 petitioners 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 petitioners, they
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.
BAIL APPL. NO. 2198 OF 2022
3. The petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer for interrogation as and
when required. The 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or
to any police officer.
4. Petitioners shall not leave India
without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. 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.
6. The petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on all Mondays and
Fridays till final report is filed.
7. If any of the above conditions are
BAIL APPL. NO. 2198 OF 2022
violated by the petitioners, 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
