Kerala High Court
Govindankutty @Mani 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. 3169 OF 2022
CRIME NO.474/2022 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONERS:
1 MEBEESH T. K.,
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNAN,
THERUPARAMBIL, KARIKKAD P O,
KARIKKAD,THRISSUR- 680519
2 BAJI M.P,
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O PRABHAKARAN M S
MUTHIRAMPARAMBATH HOUSE,
PATHAKKARA PERUMPILAVU,
KARIKKANAD P.O, THRISSUR-680519
3 PRAJEESH A P
AGED 34 YEARS
C/0 PRATHAPAN A R,
ATHIRAPULLY HOUSE, KARIKKANAD
VTC TALAPILLY DISTRICT THRISSUR- 680519
BY ADVS.P.M.RAFIQ
M.REVIKRISHNAN
AJEESH K.SASI
MITHA SUDHINDRAN
SRUTHY N. BHAT
RAHUL SUNIL
SRUTHY K.K
RESPONDENTS:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031
SRI VIPIN NARAYAN- SR P.P
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.05.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..3170/2022, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.3169 & 3170 of 2022
2
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. 3170 OF 2022
CRIME NO.474/2022 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONER:
GOVINDANKUTTY @MANI
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR.,
PALISSERY, PORAVOOR,
KARIKKAD,THRISSUR
PIN - 680519
BY ADVS.
P.M.RAFIQ
M.REVIKRISHNAN
AJEESH K.SASI
MITHA SUDHINDRAN
RAHUL SUNIL
SRUTHY N. BHAT
SRUTHY K.K
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM - 682031
SRI VIPIN NARAYAN- SR P.P
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.05.2022, ALONG WITH Bail
Appl..3169/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.3169 & 3170 of 2022
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A.Nos.3169 & 3170 of 2022
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 06th day of May, 2022
ORDER
These Bail Applications are filed under Section 438 of
Criminal Procedure Code. These Bail Applications are filed by
the accused in same crime number and therefore, these Bail
Applications are disposed by a common order.
2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.474/2022
of Kunnamkulam Police Station. The above case is registered
against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section
149 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners formed
themselves into an unlawful assembly with dangerous weapon
and attacked the defacto complainant.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public
Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
allegations against the petitioners are not correct. The
counsel also submitted that even before registration of this
B.A.Nos.3169 & 3170 of 2022
crime, a case is registered against the defacto complainant
and others as Crime No.473/2022. The counsel further
submitted that the case against the defacto complainant is the
main case and this is the counter case. The counsel submitted
that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this
Court grant them bail. The counsel further submitted that in
the main case, the offence alleged includes the offence under
Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. The Public Prosecutor
opposed the bail applications and submitted that if this Court
is granting bail, stringent conditions may be imposed. After
hearing both sides and also taking into consideration that it is
a case and counter case, I think these bail applications can be
allowed on 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 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.
B.A.Nos.3169 & 3170 of 2022
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 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
B.A.Nos.3169 & 3170 of 2022
case, this Bail Applications are allowed with the following
directions:
1. The petitioners 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 petitioners, they 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 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 him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer.
B.A.Nos.3169 & 3170 of 2022
4. The petitioners shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. The 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 Mondays at 10 am,
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 by this Court.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
B.A.Nos.3169 & 3170 of 2022
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3170/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
473/2022 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION
DATED 04-04-2022
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 474/
2022 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION
DATED 04-04-2022
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY
ISSUED BY THE JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL
REGARDING THE STAB WOUND OF THE
APPLICANT
