Kerala High Court
Pavithran M.G 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. 2709 OF 2022
PETITIONER/ACCUSED
PAVITHRAN M.G
AGED 21 YEARS
MANEZHATHU, AROOR P.O, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688534
BY ADVS.
M.SANTHI (K/868/2011)
G.RANJU MOHAN
RESPONDENT/
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. VIPIN NARAYANAN
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 2709 OF 2022
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.2709 of 2022
-------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of May, 2022
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of
Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Petitioner is the 6th accused in Crime No.249 of
2022 of Aroor Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioner and others alleging
offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149,
452, 323, 324, 354 and 308 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 23.03.2022 at
1.00 p.m., the petitioner and other accused due to
previous enmity, in prosecution of their common object,
formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and
trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant's
BAIL APPL. NO. 2709 OF 2022
brother. It is further alleged that the 3 rd accused fisted
on the nose of de facto complainant and the 2 nd
accused beat the de facto complainant with an iron
road on the left forehead. It is alleged that the 1 st
accused used knife. There are other overt acts to the
accused.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is the 6th accused and the other accused are
already arrested. The counsel submitted that there is no
serious allegation against the petitioner. The Public
Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the Public
Prosecutor submitted that if this Court is granting bail, the
petitioner may be directed to cooperate with the
investigation. After hearing both sides, I think the bail
application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The
main allegation is against other accused and it is submitted
that the other accused is already granted bail. In such
BAIL APPL. NO. 2709 OF 2022
circumstances there is no reason to deny bail to the
petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
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 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
BAIL APPL. NO. 2709 OF 2022
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 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
BAIL APPL. NO. 2709 OF 2022
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. 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
is suspected.
6. The petitioner shall appear before the
BAIL APPL. NO. 2709 OF 2022
Investigating Officer on all Mondays and
Fridays 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
hmh
