Kerala High Court
Thulasi 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. 1178 OF 2022
CRIME NO.1463/2021 OF Punalur Police Station, Kollam
PETITIONER/S:
1 THULASI
AGED 42 YEARS
SON OF NARAYANAN, , THAMBURU BHAVANAM,
PALOTTUKONAM, ELICODU P.O., KARAVALLOOR VILLAGE,
PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT
KOLLAM, PIN - 691322
2 MANOHARAN
AGED 49 YEARS
SON OF CHEKKAPPAN, BINDHU BHAVAN, PALOTTUKONAM,
ELICODU P.O., KARAVALLOOR VILLAGE, PUNALUR,
KOLLAM DISTRICT
KOLLAM, PIN - 691322
BY ADV SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-2-
BA No. 1178 of 2010
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
======================================================
B.A.No. 1178 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 petitioners are accused in Crime No.1463 of 2021
of Punalur Police Station. The above case is registered against
the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 143,
147, 148, 294(b), 452, 323, 324, 308, 354 and 506(ii) read with
Section 149 IPC.
3.The prosecution case is that on 24.11.2021 at 6.30 pm
the petitioner and other accused formed into an unlawful
assembly with deadly weapons like iron rods and wooden piece
and criminally trespassed into the house of the de facto
complainant and dragged the de facto complainant by holding
on her hair and outraged her modesty by tearing her nighty and
BA No. 1178 of 2010
the other accused fisted and slapped her and her husband and
child and thereby committed the offences.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public
Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
allegation against the petitioners are not correct. It is submitted
that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offences
under Section 308 and 354 IPC are not made out. The counsel
also submitted that some of the accused are already released on
bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that there is
no criminal antecedents to the petitioners. The public prosecutor
seriously opposed the bail application. The public prosecutor
submitted that the petitioners and the de facto complainants are
neighbours. The prosecutor submitted that if the petitioners are
released on bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. there is chance for
further altercations. It is also submitted that serious injuries are
sustained to the injured person. It is true that the allegations
against the petitioners are very serious. But it is the fact that
BA No. 1178 of 2010
some of the accused are already released on bail under Section
438 Cr.P.C. It is also an admitted fact that there is no criminal
antecedents to the petitioners. The public prosecutor submitted
that the petitioners and the de facto complainant are neighbours.
In such circumstances, there can be a direction to the petitioners
not to enter the jurisdiction limit of the police station concerned
for a period of 60 days or till final report is filed in the case.
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
BA No. 1178 of 2010
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 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:
BA No. 1178 of 2010
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.
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
BA No. 1178 of 2010
suspected, of the commission of which they are
suspected.
6. Petitioners shall not enter the jurisdictional limit
of Punalur Police Station for a period of 60 days or
till the final report is filed. Petitioners shall give
the phone number and the details of the place
where they will reside during the above period to
the investigating officer on the date of surrender
itself.
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
JUDGE
das
BA No. 1178 of 2010
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1178/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORD OF
THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER IN LAW
Annexure2 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER CRL.M.C.
2244/2022 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-II, KOLLAM DATED 7/2/22
