Bail Applications Nos. 1510/2022 and 1753/2022: Rajeevkumar P v State of Kerala; Sajeeshmon M R v State of Kerala

# **`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. 1510 OF 2022 ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:`** - **`1 RAJEEVKUMAR P AGED 41 YEARS KIZHAKKE KALEEKKAL hOUSE, THUKALASSERRY,THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689115`** - **`2 JOHN PAULOSE AGED 38 YEARS MEPPURATHU hOUSE, MADAVANAPARAMBIL,THUKALASSERRY,THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689115 BY ADVS. T.P.PRADEEP P.K.SATHEES KUMAR R.K.PRASANTH MINIKUMARY M.V.`** ## **`RESPONDENT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` SRI VIPIN NARAYAN- SR P.P, ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.05.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1753/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NOs. 1510 & 1753 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. 1753 OF 2022 ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED`** ``` SAJEESHMON M R AGED 38 YEARS MALIKKAL HOUSE,THIRUMOOLAPURAM P.O, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689115 BY ADVS. T.P.PRADEEP P.K.SATHEES KUMAR R.K.PRASANTH MINIKUMARY M.V. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031 ``` ``` BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SANAL .P.RAJ. ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.05.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1510/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NOs. 1510 & 1753 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A.Nos.1510 & 1753 of 2022 ------------------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of May, 2022 ## **O R D E R** These Bail Applications are filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code and the petitioners are accused in same crime. Therefore, I am disposing of these bail applications by common order. 2. Petitioners are accused in Crime No.2440 of 2021 of Thiruvalla Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 451, 427, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC. The offence under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act is also alleged. 3. The prosecution case is that on 03.12.2021 in connection with the Harthal called by CPM, the accused ``` BAIL APPL. NOs. 1510 & 1753 OF 2022 4 ``` trespassed into the Branch of State Bank of India and threatened the de facto complainant and caused damage to the chairs of the bank and thus incurred a loss of Rs.20,000/- to the bank. 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 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The counsel submitted that the incident is not happened as alleged by the Public Prosecutor. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that if this Court is granting bail, the petitioners may be directed to deposit the loss sustained by the bank. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed. The petitioners shall deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- before the jurisdictional court. After depositing the amount, the petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer. With the above condition this bail application can be allowed. ``` BAIL APPL. NOs. 1510 & 1753 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` 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 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 ``` BAIL APPL. NOs. 1510 & 1753 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` 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 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 satisfaction of the ``` BAIL APPL. NOs. 1510 & 1753 OF 2022 ``` arresting officer concerned. 3. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall cooperate 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. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. 6. The petitioners shall deposit Rs.5,000/each before the jurisdictional court and thereafter surrender before the Investigating ``` BAIL APPL. NOs. 1510 & 1753 OF 2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` Officer as directed in Clause No.1. 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 any of the above conditions are violated. sd/- ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** hmh