Chackochan K Biju vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 2374 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 2374 Ker
Judgement Date : 13 January, 2025

Kerala High Court

Chackochan K Biju vs State Of Kerala on 13 January, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

BAIL APPL. NO. 11102 OF 2024           1




                                                      2025:KER:2466
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

     MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 23RD POUSHA, 1946

                       BAIL APPL. NO. 11102 OF 2024

     CRIME NO.1784/2024 OF Thodupuzha Police Station, Idukki

       AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 17.12.2024 IN CRMC NO.990

OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA

PETITIONER/S:

             CHACKOCHAN K BIJU
             AGED 23 YEARS
             S/O. BIJU K.C, KARUMANAPILLIL HOUSE, PUTHUPERIYARAM
             P.O, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685608


             BY ADVS.
             SUBI K.
             ARUN JOSE THOMAS



RESPONDENT/S:
          STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
          KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

             SRI.RANJITH GEORGE, PP


      THIS    BAIL    APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
13.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 11102 OF 2024         2




                                                            2025:KER:2466
                      P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                    --------------------------------------
                       B.A. No. 11102 of 2024
                    --------------------------------------
               Dated this the 13th day of January, 2025


                               ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. The petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime No.

1784/2024 of Thodupuzha Police Station. The above case is

registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under

Secs.132, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS')

and Sec.4(1) of the Kerala Healthcare Service Persons and

Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage

to Property) Act, 2012.

3. The prosecution case is that on 27.10.2024 at 3.40

pm, the 1st accused was brought to the District Hospital Thodupuzha

as he got injured by jumping from an autorickshaw. It is alleged that

the accused persons shouted from the hospital and obstructed the

official duty of the Medical Officer. Hence, it is alleged that the

accused committed the offences.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public

2025:KER:2466 Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner is the 4th accused and there is no serious

allegation against the petitioner. The other accused were

already arrested and released on bail. The petitioner submitted

that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court

grants him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the

petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. A perusal of the

prosecution case would not show that the petitioner, who is the

4th accused has any serious overtact. The other accused were

already released on bail. Considering the facts and

circumstances, I think the petitioner can be released on bail,

after imposing stringent conditions.

7. 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

2025:KER:2466 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.

8. 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

2025:KER:2466 officer to arrest the accused."

9. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of

Investigation [2023 KHC 6961], the Apex Court observed

that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is

not a rule that bail should be denied in every case.

10. 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

2025:KER:2466 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.