Kerala High Court
Ravi 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. 2365 OF 2022
CRIME NO.238/2022 OF Adhur Police Station, Kasargod
PETITIONER/S:
RAVI
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.BABU, R/AT PALLAPPADI
BELLUR P.O.,
KASARGOD DISTRICT:
, PIN - 671531
BY ADVS.
ROSIN JOSEPH
AMRITA ARUN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
(CRIME NO. 238 OF 2022) ADHUR POLICE STATION,
KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671543
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SMT. SREEJA V. SR.P.P.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-2-
BA No.2365 of 2022
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
======================================================
B.A.No. 2365 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.238 of 2022
of Adhur Police Station. The above case is registered against
the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 353
and 332 read with 34 IPC.
3.The prosecution case is that on 10.03.2022 at about
12.30, the police went to arrest accused No.1 in Crime No.842
of 2021, and at that time the accused resisted the arrest and
attacked the de facto complainant and others and caused
injuries. Hence, the accused committed the offence.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
BA No.2365 of 2022
allegation against the petitioner is not correct. The counsel
submitted that the petitioner was not able to comply with
condition No.iii in Ext.A1 bail order and he approached the
officials of Adhur police station and requested to give some
time to execute the bail. The petitioner was attempted to arrest.
The counsel submitted that the petitioner was not present in the
house at that time. 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. After going through the prosecution case, I
think the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be
necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. There can
be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Investigating
Officer and cooperate with the investigation.
5. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is
the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme
BA No.2365 of 2022
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.
"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
BA No.2365 of 2022
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.
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
BA No.2365 of 2022
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.
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.2365 of 2022
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2365/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
24.02.2022 IN B.A. NO. 772 OF 2022
