Kerala High Court
Ajeesh.C.J vs State Of Kerala on 6 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 16TH VAISAKHA, 1944
BAIL APPL. NO. 3378 OF 2022
CRIME NO.390/2022 OF Mananthavady Police Station, Wayanad
PETITIONER/S:
AJEESH.C.J
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O JOY,CHIRAKKACHALIL HOUSE,KOTTIYOOR
P.O,IRITTY, KANNUR, PIN - 670673
BY ADV T.S.SREEKUTTY
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-2-
BA No.3378 of 2022
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
======================================================
B.A.No. 3378 of 2022
=============================================================
Dated this the 6th 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.390 of 2022
of Mananthavady Police Station. The above case is registered
against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under
Section 379 IPC.
3.The prosecution case is that on 19.03.2022 between 12
noon and 24 hours the accused have stolen a scrap Kirloskar
pump belonging to Social Forestry Range, Mananthavady, kept
on the backside of forest office quarters, without the knowledge
and consent of the Social Forestry Range and sold the same.
Hence, the accused committed the offence.
BA No.3378 of 2022
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
allegation against the petitioner is not correct. The counsel also
takes me through Annexure A2 copy of the statement submitted
by the DFO North Division, Mananthavady. The counsel
submitted that the entire transaction was with the knowledge of
the officials. The counsel takes me through paragraph 4 of the
bail application. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously
opposed the bail application. After hearing both sides and after
going through paragraph 4 of the bail application, I think the
bail application can be allowed imposing stringent conditions.
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
BA No.3378 of 2022
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.
"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
BA No.3378 of 2022
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.
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
BA No.3378 of 2022
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.
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 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
BA No.3378 of 2022
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3378/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure -A1 TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 390/2022
OF MANNATHAVADY POLICE STATION.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED
BY JAYASOORYA
