Kerala High Court
Xxx 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. 184 OF 2022
CRIME NO.1515/2021 OF Kunnicode Police Station, Kollam
PETITIONERS:
1 JITHIN K.THOMAS, AGED 36YEARS
S/O.Y.THOMAS, KODIYATTU HOUSE,
KANNIMEL, PATTAZHI PO,
PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691522
2 BENCY THOMAS
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O.Y.THOMAS, KODIYATTU HOUSE, KANNIMEL,
PATTAZHI P.O., PATHANAPURAM,
KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 522.
3 Y.THOMAS
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.YOHANNAN, KODIYATTU HOUSE,
KANNIMEL, PATTAZHI P.O., PATHANAPURAM,
KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 522.
BY ADV MANOJ RAMASWAMY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 031.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KUNNIKODE POLICE STATION,
KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 506.
BY SMT.V.SREEJA, 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.184/2022
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A.No.184 of 2022
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 06th day of May, 2022
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of
Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Petitioners are the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 in Crime
No.1515/2021 of Kunnikode Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 294(b), 323 and 324 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence under Section 75 of
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 is also alleged.
3. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public
Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that
there is matrimonial dispute between the 1st petitioner and the
defacto complainant. The counsel also submitted that the
petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation. The
Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public
B.A.No.184/2022
Prosecutor submitted that if this Court is granting bail, there
may be a direction to the petitioners to co-operate with the
investigation. After hearing both sides, I think this bail
application can be allowed on stringent conditions.
Matrimonial disputes are pending between the 1 st petitioner
and the defacto complainant. The offence alleged is also in
connection with the matrimonial dispute. Therefore this bail
application can be allowed.
4. 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.
5. 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:
B.A.No.184/2022
"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."
6. 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 petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer within two weeks from
today and shall undergo interrogation.
B.A.No.184/2022
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)
each 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.
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
B.A.No.184/2022
which they are suspected.
6. 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. 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
