Faisal K P vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 5099 Ker

          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. 2772 OF 2022
    CRIME NO.211/2022 OF Tirur Police Station, Malappuram


PETITIONER:

          FAISAL K P
          AGED 35 YEARS
          S/O SAIDALAVI, KODAKKATT PARAMBIL HOUSE,
          THIRUNAVAYA POST, THIRUNAVAYA, TIRUR TALUK,
          MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676301

          BY ADV BINU V V VEETTIL VALAPPIL

RESPONDENT:

          STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

          BY ADV.SANAL P.RAJ, 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.2772/2022

                                    2



                     P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                      --------------------------------
                        B.A.No.2772 of 2022
               ----------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 06th day of May, 2022


                                ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of

Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.211/2022 of

Tirur Police Station. The above case is registered against the

petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 379 read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence under

Sections 20 and 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and

Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 was also alleged.

3. The prosecution case is that on 14.03.2022, at

about 5.15 pm, the defacto complainant found the accused

riding a motorcycle allegedly escorting a tipper lorry

transporting river sand, at Thirunavaya -Edakkulam Public

Road, violating the provisions of Act 18 of 2001. On seeing the

police personal, accused stopped the vehicle and ran away and

police seized the vehicle as well as the sand and the crime was

registered. Hence it is alleged that the petitioner committed B.A.No.2772/2022

the offence.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public

Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even

if the prosecution case is accepted, the offence alleged is not

made out. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is

ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The

Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted

that if this Court is granting bail, stringent conditions may be

imposed. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not

be necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case. After

hearing both sides, I think the bail application can be allowed

with 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.

6. Recently the Apex Court in Siddharth v State of B.A.No.2772/2022

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

case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following B.A.No.2772/2022

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 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. The petitioner shall not leave India without B.A.No.2772/2022

permission of the jurisdictional Court.

5. The 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. 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.

sd/-

                                       P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV                                            JUDGE