Vinayaka Ram vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 4942 Ker

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4942 Ker
Judgement Date : 4 May, 2022

Kerala High Court

Vinayaka Ram 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. 1185 OF 2022
PETITIONER/ACCUSED

          VINAYAKA RAM.M
          AGED 34 YEARS
          SON OF PARASSURAM, MANKUNITHAZHAM QUARTERS,
          PAINGOTTUPURAM, KUTTIKATTOOR, KOZHIKODE,
          PIN - 673008
          BY ADVS.
          T.G.RAJENDRAN
          T.R. TARIN


RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT :

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF KERALA
          ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
    2     STATION HOUSE OFFICER
          TOWN POLICE STATION,
          KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673501
          BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SREEJA V




     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.05.2022,   THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 1185 OF 2022
                                    2




                P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                 --------------------------------
                   B.A.No.1185 of 2022
                  -------------------------------
            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 accused in Crime No.803 of

2021 of Kozhikode Town Police Station. The above case

is registered against the petitioner alleging offence

punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that the Scheduled

Caste Development Officer attached to Municipal

Corporation has lodged a complaint before the police

alleging that the accused had availed loan from

Chelavoor Co-operative Bank by filing before the said

bank, a forged certificate purported to have been BAIL APPL. NO. 1185 OF 2022

issued by the Scheduled Caste Development Officer. It

is alleged that the accused had submitted the same by

forging the signature and seal of the Scheduled Caste

Development Officer, Kozhikode. Hence the petitioner

committed the offence.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public

Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the allegations against the petitioner are not committed.

The counsel also submitted that even if the entire

allegations are accepted, no offence is made out. The

counsel submitted that the custodial interrogation of the

petitioner is not necessary. The Public Prosecutor seriously

opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor

submitted that the case itself is registered based on a

complaint filed by the Scheduled Caste Development

Officer. Very serious allegations are there. The petitioner

forged the official seal also. The Public Prosecutor

submitted that this Court may not release the petitioner

under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is true that allegation against BAIL APPL. NO. 1185 OF 2022

the petitioner are very serious. But after going through the

facts and circumstances of the case, I think custodial

interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary in this

case. There can be stringent conditions to the petitioner

while granting bail.

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 BAIL APPL. NO. 1185 OF 2022

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: