Bail Application No.501 of 2024

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 19TH MAGHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 501 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.24/2024 OF Valappad Police Station, Thrissur ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1BINEESH, AGED 45 YEARS S/O KRISHNA, EPPURATH HOUSE, THALIKULAM, PUTHIYANGADI, THALIKULAM P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680569 2PRAVEEN, AGED 30 YEARS S/O., JAGANIVASAN, PUNNA HOUSE,GURUVAYOOR, MANIKYATHPADI, THRISSUR, PIN - 680101 BY ADVS. K.I.SAGEER MUHAMMED YASIL ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VALAPPAD POLICE STATION, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680567 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SMT.SHYNI V.O, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 Bail Application No.501 of 2024 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** ## **======================** ## **Bail Application No.501 of 2024** **-----------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 8[th] day of February, 2024** ## **O R D E R** 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 3 and 4 in Crime No.24/2024 of the Valappad Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused (four in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 332, 353, 308 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, _(‘IPC’, for short)._ 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that: on 8.1.2024 at about 11.p.m, the accused attacked and assaulted the 3 Bail Application No.501 of 2024 defacto complainant/Sub Inspector of Police, Valappad Police Station and other Police Officials of the same Police station. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri. K.I Sageer, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Shyni V.O, the learned Senior 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. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. The Police have deliberately incorporated a nonbailable offence only for the purpose of denying bail to the petitioners. The petitioners have no criminal antecedents. The petitioners are willing to co-operate with the investigation and abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. The investigation in the case is practically complete. Hence, the application may be allowed. 4 Bail Application No.501 of 2024 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners had forcefully pushed away the Policemen and the Sub Inspector of Police, named, Abin C.N sustained a lacerated wound on the right parietal region of his scalp as evidenced by the accident register-cum-wound certificate dated 8.1.2024, recorded at 11.37 p.m by the Daya Emergency Care Centre, Thrissur. The investigation in the case is in progress and the recovery is to be effected. The petitioners’ custodial interrogation is necessary. If the petitioners are let off on bail, it would hamper with the investigation. 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: 5 Bail Application No.501 of 2024 **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 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 6 Bail Application No.501 of 2024 prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, 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 pre-arrest bail being an extra ordinary privilege, should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Courts has to be properly exercised, after proper application of mind, to decide whether it is a fit case to grant an order of pre-arrest bail. The court has to be prima facie satisfied that the 7 Bail Application No.501 of 2024 applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime and his liberty is being misused. 9. On a consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record and the rival submission made across the Bar, especially after going through the accident register cum wound certificate of the Sub Inspector of Police dated 8.1.2024, that the investigation in the case is in progress, that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary and recovery is to be effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioners are not entitled to 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 an application for bail, the jurisdictional Court shall, untrammelled by any observations 8 Bail Application No.501 of 2024 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/- Sks/8.2.2024 **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE**