Kerala High Court
Najmal Nazeer 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. 3059 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
RAMEEZ
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O ABDUL RAZZAK, VALIYAKATH HOUSE, PAVARATTY
VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN
- 680512
BY ADVS.
ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN
C.DHEERAJ RAJAN
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI VIPIN NARAYAN - SR P.P
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.05.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2408/2022, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
BA Nos. 2408 & 3059 of 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. 2408 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
NAJMAL NAZEER
AGED 29 YEARS
S.O. NAZEER, VALIYAKATHPOVIL HOUSE, PAVARATTY
VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680512
BY ADVS.
C.DHEERAJ RAJAN
ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI. VIPIN NARAYAN SR. PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.05.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..3059/2022, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
BA Nos. 2408 & 3059 of 2022
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
======================================================
B.A.Nos. 2408 & 3059 of 2022
=============================================================
Dated this the 6th day of May, 2022
ORDER
These Bail Applications are filed under Section 438 of
Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The petitioners are accused in same crime number and
therefore, I am disposing of these two bail applications by a
common order. Petitioners are accused in Crime No.269 of
2022 of Pavaratty Police Station. The above case is registered
against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under
Sections 452 and 325 IPC.
3.The prosecution case is that the petitioners trespassed
into the residential house of the de facto complainant on
09.03.2022 at 1 am and assaulted him and thereby committed
the offences.
BA Nos. 2408 & 3059 of 2022
4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public
Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
only non bailable offence is under Section 452 IPC. The
counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are
ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant them bail. The
public prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the public
prosecutor conceded that the only non bailable offence alleged
is Section 452 IPC. Considering the facts and circumstances of
the 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
BA Nos. 2408 & 3059 of 2022
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 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
BA Nos. 2408 & 3059 of 2022
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 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
BA Nos. 2408 & 3059 of 2022
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to any police officer.
4. Petitioners shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. 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. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Officer on all Mondays at 10 am till the 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 there is any violation of
the above conditions.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
das
BA Nos. 2408 & 3059 of 2022
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3059/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
07.04.2022 IN B.A 2408/2022 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT
