Kerala High Court
Byju C.K 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. 3183 OF 2022
CRIME NO.501/2022 OF Kunnamkulam Police Station, Thrissur
PETITIONER/S:
BYJU C.K,AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. KUMARAN,
URNNAMKULAM, MATHUR POST,
KOZHALMANNAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678571
BY ADV SANTHEEP ANKARATH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION,
KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT
PIN - 680503
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI. SANAL P. RAJ PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-2-
BA No.3183 of 2022
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
======================================================
B.A.No. 3183 of 2022
=============================================================
Dated this the 6th day of May, 2022
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of
Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.501 of 2022
of Kunnamkulam Police Station. The above case is registered
against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under
Sections 323 and 498A IPC.
3.The prosecution case is that the petitioner mentally and
physically harassing the de facto complainant, who is his wife
and thereby committed the offence.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
allegation against the petitioner is not correct. The counsel
submitted that matrimonial offences are alleged and there is no
BA No.3183 of 2022
truth in the allegation. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is ready to abide any condition if this Court
grant him bail. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. After hearing both sides, I think the custodial
interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary in the facts
and circumstances of the case. The offences alleged are
matrimonial offences. Considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, 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 in as much as the grant of bail is the rule
BA No.3183 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 be a compulsion on
the officer to arrest the accused."
BA No.3183 of 2022
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 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.
BA No.3183 of 2022
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 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. 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
das
