Kerala High Court
Abhijith 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. 3185 OF 2022
CRIME NO.198/2022 OF Kolathur Police Station, Malappuram
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:
1 ABHIJITH
AGED 22 YEARS
SON OF AYYAPPAN, THEKKETHIL HOUSE,
CHEMMALASSERY P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,.,
PIN - 679323
2 SUBRAMANYAN @ SUBRAN
AGED 30 YEARS
SON OF KUNJADI, THEKKETHIL HOUSE, CHEMMALASSERY
P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 679323
3 PRAJITH
AGED 29 YEARS
SON OF CHANDRAN, NAYKKANTHODI,
VALLAPPUZHA, CHERUKODE P.O, PATTAMBI,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT,, PIN - 679336
BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.SMT.;SREEJA 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.3185/2022
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3185 of 2022
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 04th day of May, 2022
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of
Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.198/2022
of Kolathur Police Station. The above case is registered
against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under
Sections 341 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. Subsequently the offence under Section 326 of
the Indian Penal Code was also incorporated.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 05.04.2022 at 10
pm, the accused, due to previous enmity towards the
defacto complainant, wrongfully restrained the defacto
complainant and attacked him using a wooden log. Hence
it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the
B.A.No.3185/2022
Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the allegation against the petitioners are not
correct. The counsel also submitted that originally bailable
offences are alleged and subsequently Section 326 of the
Indian Penal Code is incorporated at the instance of the
injured. The counsel also submitted that no serious injuries
sustained to the injured. The counsel submitted that the
alleged incident happened on 05.04.2022 and the complaint
was filed only on 07.04.2022. The Public Prosecutor
seriously opposed the bail application. It is true that that
the allegation against the petitioners are very serious. This
Court considered the contention raised by the petitioners.
It is true that there is some delay in lodging the complaint.
That itself is not a reason to grant bail to the petitioners.
But, considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be
necessary. The petitioners can be directed to appear
before the Investigating Officer till final report is filed.
5. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the
B.A.No.3185/2022
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.
B.A.No.3185/2022
(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 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
B.A.No.3185/2022
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 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. The petitioners shall not leave India
without permission of the jurisdictional
Court.
5. The petitioners shall appear before the
B.A.No.3185/2022
Investigating Officer on all Mondays and
Fridays at 10 am, till final report is filed.
6. 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.
7. 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. 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.3185/2022
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3185/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO.198/2022 OF KOLATHUR
POLICE STATION DATED 07.04.2022.
