Kerala High Court
Jomon Joseph 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. 3823 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 JOMON JOSEPH
AGED 27 YEARS
A.M HOUSE T.C14/1428,
VIGNESWARA NAGAR, PALAYAM,
THYCADU VILLAGE, THIRUVANATHAPURAM.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
2 SREEJITH
AGED 29 YEARS
T.C14/1428,
VIGNESWARA NAGAR, PALAYAM,
THYCADU VILLAGE, THIRUVANATHAPURAM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
3 AMAL S.M
AGED 23 YEARS
T.C 15/751PALOTTUKONAM ROAD,
EDAPAZHANJI ,THIRUVANATHAPURAM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695006
BY ADVS.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN
SMT.B.ANUSREE
SMT.RESHMA UNNIKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
SRI SANAL P.RAJ - P.P
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.3823/2021
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3823 of 2021
----------------------------------------------
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 in Crime No.826/2020
of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The above
case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and
326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners and
others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and
attacked the defacto complainant, which resulted in serious
injuries to him.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public
Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence.
The counsel also submitted that the petitioners are ready to
abide any conditions if this Court grant them bail. The Public
B.A.No.3823/2021
Prosecutor opposed the bail application. When this bail
application came up for consideration on 11.05.2021, by a
detailed order, this Court granted interim bail to the
petitioners in the light of the pandemic situation faced. Even
now the bail application is pending. The interim order need
not be continued like this. There can be a direction to the
petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer so
that the investigation, if not completed, can be concluded in
accordance to law.
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:
B.A.No.3823/2021
"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
directions:
1. The petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer within two weeks from
B.A.No.3823/2021
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.
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
B.A.No.3823/2021
accused, or suspected, of the commission of
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.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
