Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail Granted

Abhijith, Subramanyan @ Subran and Prajith v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 3185 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2022-05-04
Court Decision / Holding
The Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: (i) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and undergo interrogation; (ii) After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties of like amount; (iii) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 10:00 AM till final report is filed; (iv) Petitioners shall not leave India without the permission of the jurisdictional court; (v) Petitioners shall not commit a similar offence; (vi) If any condition is violated, the bail may be cancelled by the jurisdictional court.
Final Disposition
Bail Granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Abhijith
  • Subramanyan @ Subran
  • Prajith

Respondents

  • State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. Nireesh Mathew

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt. Sreeja V., Sr. Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala bail application under Section 438 CrPC concerns three accused in Crime No. 198/2022 of Kolathur Police Station, Malappuram. Abhijith, aged 22; Subramanyan alias Subran, aged 30; and Prajith, aged 29, are charged with offences including wrongful restraint (Section 341 IPC) and causing hurt (Section 324 IPC) with common intent (Section 34 IPC), and later the offence of grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC was added. The prosecution case asserts that on 5 April 2022, in a deed of previous enmity, the accused restrained the complainant and assaulted him with a wooden log at night. The petitioners seek anticipatory/custodial relief under 438 CrPC, contending that the material facts do not support the more serious 326 IPC charge and that injuries were not grave; further, the FIR was lodged belatedly on 7 April 2022. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, highlighting the seriousness of the allegations and potential for tampering with witnesses. The court, while noting the delay, observed that delay alone is not a ground to deny bail and that custodial interrogation is not necessary at this stage. Citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the court reaffirmed the bail rule and granted bail with conditions, including appearance before the IO, bond, no travel without permission, and weekly reporting until final report.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of CrPCSections 341 and 324 read with Section 34 IPCSection 326 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Bail is the rule and jail is the exception

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the allegations against them are not correct; originally the offences were bailable and the subsequent incorporation of Section 326 was at the instance of the injured; there is no evidence of serious injuries; the FIR was lodged belatedly on 07.04.2022; custodial interrogation is not necessary and the petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigation. They seek bail with appropriate conditions to ensure a fair trial and non-interference with the investigation, relying on the general principle that bail is the rule and detention in jail is the exception.

Contentions of Respondents

The State opposed bail, arguing that the offences are serious and the addition of Section 326 IPC indicates gravitas and potential grievous hurt. There is a risk of tampering with witnesses or absconding, and the delay in filing the FIR is noted but not deemed a reason to withhold bail. The prosecution urged that custodial interrogation may be necessary to advance the investigation and to protect public order and the integrity of the case.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement2019 (16) SCALE 870PositiveSupports the principle that the basic bail jurisprudence remains that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.
Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another2021(5)KHC 353PositiveDiscusses personal liberty and the distinction between the power to arrest and justification for exercising it, reinforcing that arrest need not be routine.
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 1981PositiveCited to illustrate that mere existence of power to arrest does not compel arrest; custody should be justified by necessity.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abhijith, Subramanyan @ Subran and Prajith v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 14TH VAISAKHA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 3185 OF 2022 ``` ``` CRIME NO.198/2022 OF Kolathur Police Station, Malappuram ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:`** ``` 1ABHIJITH AGED 22 YEARS SON OF AYYAPPAN, THEKKETHIL HOUSE, CHEMMALASSERY P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,., PIN - 679323 2SUBRAMANYAN @ SUBRAN AGED 30 YEARS SON OF KUNJADI, THEKKETHIL HOUSE, CHEMMALASSERY P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 679323 3PRAJITH AGED 29 YEARS SON OF CHANDRAN, NAYKKANTHODI, VALLAPPUZHA, CHERUKODE P.O, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,, PIN - 679336 BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV.SMT.;SREEJA V., SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A.No.3185/2022** **2** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------B.A.No.3185 of 2022** ## **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 04[th] day of May, 2022** ## **ORDER** This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.198/2022 of Kolathur Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code was also incorporated. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 05.04.2022 at 10 pm, the accused, due to previous enmity towards the defacto complainant, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and attacked him using a wooden log. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the **B.A.No.3185/2022** **3** Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegation against the petitioners are not correct. The counsel also submitted that originally bailable offences are alleged and subsequently Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is incorporated at the instance of the injured. The counsel also submitted that no serious injuries sustained to the injured. The counsel submitted that the alleged incident happened on 05.04.2022 and the complaint was filed only on 07.04.2022. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. It is true that that the allegation against the petitioners are very serious. This Court considered the contention raised by the petitioners. It is true that there is some delay in lodging the complaint. That itself is not a reason to grant bail to the petitioners. But, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary. The petitioners can be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer till final report is filed. 5. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the **B.A.No.3185/2022** **4** 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. **B.A.No.3185/2022** **5** (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 directions: 1. The petitioners 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 petitioners, they shall be released on bail on executing **B.A.No.3185/2022** **6** 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 petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 4. The petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 5. The petitioners shall appear before the **B.A.No.3185/2022** **7** Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 10 am, till final report is filed. 6. 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. 7. 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. 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** JV **8** ## **B.A.No.3185/2022** ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3185/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.198/2022 OF KOLATHUR POLICE STATION DATED 07.04.2022. ```