Kerala High Court
Lincy Jain 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. 3389 OF 2022
CRIME NO.391/2022 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS/ 3RD AND 4TH ACCUSED:
1 LINCY JAIN
AGED 38 YEARS
W/O. JAIN, MENACHERI HOUSE, THOTTAKATTUKARA P.O,
ALUVA., PIN - 683108
2 JAIN SEBASTIAN
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O.SEBASTIAN, MENACHERI HOUSE, THOTTAKATTUKARA,
ALUVA., PIN - 683108
BY ADVS.
SABU THOZHUPPADAN
V.K.KISHOR
ANTONY VARGHESE
DEVI P. PRATHAPAN
ANOOJ K SUDHARMAN
STIYA SIVAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CENTRAL
POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED THROUGH PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682031
BY ADV.SRI.VIPIN NARAYANAN, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 3389 OF 2022
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3389 of 2022
-------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of May, 2022
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of
Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Petitioners are the accused Nos. 3 and 4 in
Crime No.391 of 2022 of Central Police Station,
Ernakulam. The above case is registered against
the petitioners and others alleging offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308
and 506 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the
petitioners and the other accused wrongfully
restrained the defacto complainant and assaulted
him. It is also alleged that the petitioners
committed offence under Section 308 IPC.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3389 OF 2022
4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the
Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the petitioners are only A3 and A4.
The counsel submitted that the petitioners were
admittedly not present at the time of the incident.
The counsel submitted that no serious injuries are
sustained to the defacto complainant. The
counsel also submitted that the petitioners are
ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant
them bail. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously
opposed the bail application. The Public
Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners are
involved in a series of cases in connection with
the above incident. The Public Prosecutor
submitted that the petitioners may not be
released on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is
true that the allegations against the petitioners
are very serious. But after going through the
BAIL APPL. NO. 3389 OF 2022
facts and circumstances of the cases, it is clear
that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners
may not be necessary. The petitioners can be
directed to appear before the investigating officer
and there can be a direction to the investigating
officer to interrogate the petitioners, if needed.
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
BAIL APPL. NO. 3389 OF 2022
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:
1. The petitioners shall appear
before the Investigating Officer
within two weeks from today and
BAIL APPL. NO. 3389 OF 2022
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) each
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
BAIL APPL. NO. 3389 OF 2022
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 Saturdays at 10 a.m. till final
report is filed.
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
BAIL APPL. NO. 3389 OF 2022
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
DM
BAIL APPL. NO. 3389 OF 2022
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3389/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE1 TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME
NO.2108/2021 OF ALUVA EAST POLICE
STATION.
ANNEXURE2 TRUE COPY OF SECTION ALTERATION
REPORT FILED BY S.I. OF POLICE,
ALUVA EAST POLICE STATION IN CRIME
NO.2108/2021 OF ALUVA EAST POLICE
STATION BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT- I, ALUVA
ANNEXURE3 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED
7/12/2021 SUBMITTED BY 1ST
PETITIONER TO DISTRICT POLICE
CHIEF, ERNAKULAM (RURAL), ALUVA
ANNEXURE4 TRUE COPY OF UNDERTAKING DATED
14/12/2020 SIGNED BY MISSAN MOHANAN
ANNEXURE5 TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF
RECEIPT OF PETITION DATED
11/02/2022 ON RECEIPT OF PETITION
NO.27178/2022 ISSUED BY CYBER CRIME
POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM (RURAL)
TO 1ST PETITIONER
ANNEXURE6 TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF
RECEIPT OF PETITION DATED
19/03/2022 ON RECEIPT OF PETITION
NO.20759/2022/EC ISSUED BY CITY
POLICE OFFICE, KOCHI TO 1ST
PETITIONER
ANNEXURE7 SCREENSHOT OF WHATSAPP MESSENGER
SENT FROM MOBILE PHONE OF ADV.SAJAN
MICHEL (COUNSEL FOR DEFACTO-
COMPLAINANT) TO ADV. SABU
THOZHUPPADAN.K (COUNSEL FOR
PETITIONER) ON 21/03/2022 AND
BAIL APPL. NO. 3389 OF 2022
22/03/2022
ANNEXURE8 CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED
25/04/2022 IN CRL.M.C.NO.731/2022
OF SESSIONS COURT (VACATION),
ERNAKULAM
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
