Kerala High Court
Sijo Joy vs State Of Kerala Represented By The ... 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. 2095 OF 2022
CRIME NO.1725/2021 OF Thodupuzha Police Station, Idukki
PETITIONER/S:
SIJO JOY
AGED 34 YEARS
ODIYATHINKAL HOUSE, SANKARAPPILLY, KOLAPRA KARA,
KUDAYATHOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK,
KUDAYATHOOR P.O., IDUKKI, PIN - 685590
BY ADVS.
LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
REXY ELIZABETH THOMAS
TOM E. JACOB
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI
DISTRICT, PIN - 685584
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-2-
B.A. No. 2095 of 2022
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
======================================================
B.A.No. 2095 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.1725 of
2021 of Thodupuzha Police Station. The above case is
registered for the offences punishable under Section 354A
of IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act,
2000.
3.The prosecution case is that the accused person
who had a grudge on the de facto complainant's mother
purposefully without her permission started a facebook
account in in her name and used her photo as profile
picture without her knowledge or permission and also
posted obscene pictures in the fake facebook account
B.A. No. 2095 of 2022
with intention of causing defamation to her and her family
members and thereby committed the above offences.
4. Heard 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 the matrimonial relationship of the
petitioner and his wife is strained and the cases are also
pending. The present complaint is filed by the brother of
the petitioner's wife. The counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any
condition if this Court grant him bail. The learned Public
Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The
public prosecutor submitted that a fake facebook account
of the mother-in-law of the petitioner is created and
obscene pictures are uploaded in that facebook account.
It is true that the allegations against the petitioner are
serious. But considering the facts and circumstances of
the case custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not
B.A. No. 2095 of 2022
necessary. There can be a direction to the petitioner not
to commit similar offence, and if there is any such
incident happens, the prosecution or the victim in this
case are free to approach the competent court for
cancellation of the bail application.
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 in as
much 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.
B.A. No. 2095 of 2022
"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 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.
B.A. No. 2095 of 2022
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
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.
B.A. No. 2095 of 2022
5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which he is accused,
or suspected, of the commission of which he
suspected.
6. Petitioner shall appear before the
investigating officer on all Mondays and Fridays
at 10 am till final report is filed.
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
das
