BA Nos. 2408 & 3059 of 2022

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 16TH VAISAKHA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 3059 OF 2022 ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` RAMEEZ AGED 29 YEARS S/O ABDUL RAZZAK, VALIYAKATH HOUSE, PAVARATTY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680512 BY ADVS. ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN C.DHEERAJ RAJAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SRI VIPIN NARAYAN - SR P.P ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.05.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2408/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` -2- BA Nos. 2408 & 3059 of 2022 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 16TH VAISAKHA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 2408 OF 2022 ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` NAJMAL NAZEER AGED 29 YEARS S.O. NAZEER, VALIYAKATHPOVIL HOUSE, PAVARATTY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680512 BY ADVS. C.DHEERAJ RAJAN ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. VIPIN NARAYAN SR. PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.05.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..3059/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` -3- BA Nos. 2408 & 3059 of 2022 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** ====================================================== B.A.Nos. 2408 & 3059 of 2022 ============================================================= Dated this the 6[th ] day of May, 2022 ## **ORDER** These Bail Applications are filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The petitioners are accused in same crime number and therefore, I am disposing of these two bail applications by a common order. Petitioners are accused in Crime No.269 of 2022 of Pavaratty Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 452 and 325 IPC. 3.The prosecution case is that the petitioners trespassed into the residential house of the _de facto_ complainant on 09.03.2022 at 1 am and assaulted him and thereby committed the offences. -4- BA Nos. 2408 & 3059 of 2022 4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the only non bailable offence is under Section 452 IPC. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant them bail. The public prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the public prosecutor conceded that the only non bailable offence alleged is Section 452 IPC. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think these bail applications can be allowed on 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 inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule -5- BA Nos. 2408 & 3059 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 -6- BA Nos. 2408 & 3059 of 2022 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 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 -7- BA Nos. 2408 & 3059 of 2022 dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 5. 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. 6. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10 am till the final report is filed. 7. 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 there is any violation of the above conditions. Sd/- ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** das -8- BA Nos. 2408 & 3059 of 2022 ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3059/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2022 IN B.A 2408/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT ```