Kerala High Court
Ajeesh Kumar 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. 1086 OF 2022
CRIME NO.0034/2022 OF Kattakada Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/ACCUSED :
AJEESH KUMAR
AGED 42 YEARS
SON OF ROBINSON
AJEESH COTTAGE, BEDHANIPURAM
KATTAOCODE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695572
BY ADV S.NIKHIL SANKAR
RESPONDENTS:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.SMT.SREEJA V, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.1086/2022
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A.No.1086 of 2022
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 06th 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.34/2022 of
Kattakada Police Station. The above case is registered against
the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections
447, 354 and 354B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that on 07.01.2022 at about
8 am, the petitioner following a verbal duel arising out of
spilling of some foreign substance around the house of the
defacto complainant, assaulted the defacto complainant who is
his neighbour.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
incident was not happened as alleged by the prosecution. The
counsel also submitted that a counter case is registered and
B.A.No.1086/2022
Annexure-4 is the FIR in the counter case. The counsel
further submitted that it is a false case registered against the
petitioner. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application
and submitted that the petitioner and the defacto complainant
are neighbours. After hearing both sides, I think the bail
application can be allowed with stringent conditions. There
are two versions about the same incident. This Court is not in
a position to decide which version is correct while considering
a bail application. Both sides sustained injuries. It is also
stated in the bail application that the petitioner is a kidney
patient. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I
think the bail application can be allowed.
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
B.A.No.1086/2022
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 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
B.A.No.1086/2022
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 dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer.
4. The petitioner shall not leave India without
B.A.No.1086/2022
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. The petitioner shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which he is accused, or
suspected, of the commission of which he is
suspected.
6. 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
JV JUDGE
B.A.No.1086/2022
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1086/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure1 TRUE COPY OF THE ACCIDENT REGISTER-
CUM-WOUND CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER FROM THE COMMUNITY HEALTH
CENTRE, KATTAKADA DATED 07/01/2022
Annexure2 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SHEET
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, KATTAKADA
DATED 07/01/2022
Annexure3 TRUE COPY OF THE C.T.SCAN OF THE
ABDOMEN&PELVIS ISSUED FROM HINDLABS TO
THE PETITIONER EVIDENCING HIM AS A
KIDNEY PATIENT DATED 18/11/2021
Annexure4 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME
NO:0032/2022 OF KATTAKADA POLICE
STATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
AGAINST THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT AND
HER FAMILY MEMBERS
