Abhilash, Labeesh and Lighi @ Akhil v. State of Kerala

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 30TH MAGHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 1133 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.48/2024 OF Vellikulangara Police Station, Thrissur ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED 2 TO 4:`** ``` 1 ABHILASH AGED 29 YEARS S/O LALU, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, PUTHNOLI, VELLIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KODALY, THRISSUR., PIN - 680684 2 LABEESH AGED 30 YEARS S/O LALU, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, PUTHNOLI, VELLIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KODALY, THRISSUR., PIN - 680684 3 LIGHI @ AKHIL AGED 32 YEARS S/O UNNIKRISHANAN, KALANI HOUSE, ANNAMPADAM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE, KODALY, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680684 BY ADV RAJESH CHAKYAT ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER VELLIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680684 BY SR PP SMT SEETHA S ``` ## B.A.No.1133 of 2024 -:2:- ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.1133 of 2024 ## -:3:- ## **O R D E R** Dated this the 19[th] day of February, 2024 The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(‘Code’, for short), for an order of pre-arrest bail. 2. The petitioners are the accused 2 to 4 in Crime No.48/2024 of the Vellikulangara Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused (four in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326 and 294(b), r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 14.01.2024 at about 20.30 hours, while the de facto complainant parked his autorikshaw near Alkesh Supermarket, the accused persons abused him and asked him to park the autorickshaw somewhere else. Then the first accused hit the de facto complainant using his B.A.No.1133 of 2024 ## -:4:- helmet, and others kicked him all over his body. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri. Rajesh Chayat. C, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Seetha. S., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. There is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioners. At any rate, the offence under Section 326 will not be attracted so far as the petitioners are concerned. The petitioners’ custodial interrogation is not necessary, and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be allowed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She contended that there is a specific overt act alleged against the petitioners, that they kicked the de facto complainant when he fell down. The de facto complainant had suffered fractures in both his nasal B.A.No.1133 of 2024 -:5:- bone as well as the maxilla. He also a suffered comminuted fracture of the floor orbit. She contended that the petitioners’ custodial interrogation is necessary and that recovery is to be effected. If the petitioners are let off on bail, there is every likelihood of them intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 7. In **Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra** [(2011) 1 SCC 694] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: **111.** No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualised for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with the legislative intention the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. As aptly observed in the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia case [(1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465] that the High Court or the Court of Session has to exercise their jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC by a wise and careful use of their discretion which by their B.A.No.1133 of 2024 ## -:6:- long training and experience they are ideally suited to do. In any event, this is the legislative mandate which we are bound to respect and honour. **112** . The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences; (v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her; (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people; (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because overimplication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, B.A.No.1133 of 2024 -:7:- humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail. **126** . We deem it appropriate to reiterate and assert that discretion vested in the court in all matters should be exercised with care and circumspection depending upon the facts and circumstances justifying its exercise. Similarly, the discretion vested with the court under Section 438 CrPC should also be exercised with caution and prudence. It is unnecessary to travel beyond it and subject the wide power and discretion conferred by the legislature to a rigorous code of self-imposed limitations. ## 8. In **Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and** **another** [(2012) 4 SCC 379], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an order of a pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary privilege, which should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon B.A.No.1133 of 2024 ## -:8:- the court must be properly exercised after proper application of mind to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The Court has to be prima facie satisfied that the accusation levelled against the applicant is only to enrope him in the crime and would misuse his liberty. 9. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, especially on analysing the Accident Register-Cum-Wound Certificate of the injured, I am prima facie satisfied of the accusations levelled against the petitioners. On comprehending the seriousness, gravity, and nature of the offences alleged against the petitioners, that the petitioners’ custodial interrogation is necessary, that the recovery is to be effected, and that the investigation is in the preliminary stage, I am of the definite view that the petitioners have not made out any exceptional grounds to invoke the B.A.No.1133 of 2024 ## -:9:- extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.438 of the Code. Hence, I hold that this is not a fit case to grant an order of pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the bail application is dismissed. 10. Nonetheless, I direct that, if the petitioners surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today, they shall be interrogated and, thereafter, be produced before the jurisdictional Court on the date of surrender itself. Then, if the petitioners move application for bail, the jurisdictional Court shall, untrammelled by any observations in this order, consider the bail application on its merits and as expeditiously as possible. If the petitioners do not surrender before the Investigating Officer as directed above, the Investigating Officer shall be free to arrest the petitioners as if no order has been passed in this case. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** mtk/ 19.02.2024 B.A.No.1133 of 2024 ## -:10:- ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1133/2024`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.48/2024 OF VELLIKULANGARA POLICE STATION ```