Shemeer vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 5118 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. 3403 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:

    1     SHEMEER
          AGED 30 YEARS
          S/O.SIDHIQ, PUTHENPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE,
          ERUMAPETTY, KARIYANOOR, THRISSUR, PIN   - 680584
    2     VISHNU ALIAS VISHNU PRADEEP
          AGED 29 YEARS
          S/O.PRADEEP, CHEERATH HOUSE,
          ERUMAPETTY, KARIYANOOR, THRISSUR, PIN   - 680584
    3     SREEKANTH
          AGED 29 YEARS
          S/O.SADANANDAN, OTTAVIL HOUSE,
          ERUMAPETTY, KARIYANOOR, THRISSUR, PIN   - 680584
    4     DEVAK
          AGED 18 YEARS
          S/O.SUBASH, VADAKKAN HOUSE,
          ERUMAPETTY, KARIYANOOR, THRISSUR, PIN   - 680584
          BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

RESPONDENT:

          STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
          KERALA, PIN - 682031
          ADV 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.3403/2022


                                   2

                    P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                     --------------------------------
                       B.A.No.3403 of 2022
              ----------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 06th day of May, 2022


                               ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal

Procedure Code.

2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.195 of 2022

of Erumapetty Police Station registered alleging offences

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326,

308 and 506(i) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

Petitioners were arrested on 28.03.2022 and they are in custody.

3. The prosecution case is that on 27.03.2022 at 9 pm,

accused Nos.1 to 8 formed themselves into an unlawful

assembly at Erumapetty Umikunnu Colony and in prosecution of

their common object to attack the defacto complainant due to

their previous enmity, 1st accused wrongfully restrained the

defacto complainant, criminally intimidated him, 4 th accused hit

and kicked him, 5th and 6th accused restrained him by catching

hold of his hands, 2nd and 3rd accused hit him on his chest, 2 nd

accused hit him with a punching block on his nose and 1 st B.A.No.3403/2022

accused beat him on his head with an iron pipe. Accused Nos.7

and 8 also restrained the defacto complainant and beat and hit

on various parts of his body. The petitioners were arrested on

28.03.2022.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public

Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners are in custody from 28.03.2022 onwards. The

counsel submitted that the defacto complainant and his men

were the aggressors. The counsel also submitted that the

petitioners are ready to abide any condition if this Court grant

them bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners are

involved in other criminal cases also and therefore this Court

may not grant them bail. It is true that the allegations against

the petitioners are very serious. But the petitioners are in

custody from 28.03.2022. Simply because the petitioners are

involved in other cases, that alone is not a reason to reject the

bail application. The Apex Court observed that merely on the

basis of criminal antecedents, claim of bail cannot be rejected

(Moulana Muhammed Amir Rashadi and Others v. State of

U.P. and others [2012 (2) SCC 382]). But there can be a B.A.No.3403/2022

direction to the petitioners to appear before the Investigating

Officer till final report is filed.

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. 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 be released on bail on

executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for

the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional

Court.

2. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating

Officer for interrogation as and when required. The B.A.No.3403/2022

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/her from disclosing such facts to the

Court or to any police officer.

3. The petitioners shall not leave India without

permission of the jurisdictional Court.

4. The 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.

5. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating

Officer on all Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at

10 am, till final report is filed.

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
 B.A.No.3403/2022






               APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3403/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexue1           TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN

CRL.M.C.NO.466/2022 OF THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR DATED 26.04.2022