Kerala High Court
Sajeeshmon M R 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. 1510 OF 2022
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 RAJEEVKUMAR P
AGED 41 YEARS
KIZHAKKE KALEEKKAL hOUSE,
THUKALASSERRY,THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689115
2 JOHN PAULOSE
AGED 38 YEARS
MEPPURATHU hOUSE,
MADAVANAPARAMBIL,THUKALASSERRY,THIRUVALLA,
PIN - 689115
BY ADVS.
T.P.PRADEEP
P.K.SATHEES KUMAR
R.K.PRASANTH
MINIKUMARY M.V.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
SRI VIPIN NARAYAN- SR P.P,
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.05.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1753/2022, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NOs. 1510 & 1753 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. 1753 OF 2022
PETITIONER/ACCUSED
SAJEESHMON M R
AGED 38 YEARS
MALIKKAL HOUSE,THIRUMOOLAPURAM P.O, THIRUVALLA,
PIN - 689115
BY ADVS.
T.P.PRADEEP
P.K.SATHEES KUMAR
R.K.PRASANTH
MINIKUMARY M.V.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SANAL .P.RAJ.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.05.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1510/2022, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NOs. 1510 & 1753 OF 2022
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.Nos.1510 & 1753 of 2022
-------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of May, 2022
ORDER
These Bail Applications are filed under Section 438
of Criminal Procedure Code and the petitioners are
accused in same crime. Therefore, I am disposing of
these bail applications by common order.
2. Petitioners are accused in Crime No.2440 of
2021 of Thiruvalla Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioners alleging offences
punishable under Sections 451, 427, 506 r/w Section 34
IPC. The offence under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act is also alleged.
3. The prosecution case is that on 03.12.2021 in
connection with the Harthal called by CPM, the accused
BAIL APPL. NOs. 1510 & 1753 OF 2022
trespassed into the Branch of State Bank of India and
threatened the de facto complainant and caused
damage to the chairs of the bank and thus incurred a
loss of Rs.20,000/- to the bank.
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 3(1) of the
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The counsel
submitted that the incident is not happened as alleged by
the Public Prosecutor. The Public Prosecutor opposed the
bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that if this
Court is granting bail, the petitioners may be directed to
deposit the loss sustained by the bank. After hearing both
sides, I think this bail application can be allowed. The
petitioners shall deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- before the
jurisdictional court. After depositing the amount, the
petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer.
With the above condition this bail application can be
allowed.
BAIL APPL. NOs. 1510 & 1753 OF 2022
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
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
BAIL APPL. NOs. 1510 & 1753 OF 2022
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
Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each
for the like sum to the satisfaction of the
BAIL APPL. NOs. 1510 & 1753 OF 2022
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 petitioners shall deposit Rs.5,000/-
each before the jurisdictional court and
thereafter surrender before the Investigating
BAIL APPL. NOs. 1510 & 1753 OF 2022
Officer as directed in Clause No.1.
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
