BAIL APPLICATIONS NOS. 3169 & 3170 OF 2022 (Crime No. 474/2022, Kunnamkulam Police Station, Thrissur)

## **`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. 3169 OF 2022 ``` ``` CRIME NO.474/2022 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR ``` ## **`PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1MEBEESH T. K., AGED 28 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN, THERUPARAMBIL, KARIKKAD P O, KARIKKAD,THRISSUR- 680519 2BAJI M.P, AGED 49 YEARS S/O PRABHAKARAN M S MUTHIRAMPARAMBATH HOUSE, PATHAKKARA PERUMPILAVU, KARIKKANAD P.O, THRISSUR-680519 3PRAJEESH A P AGED 34 YEARS C/0 PRATHAPAN A R, ATHIRAPULLY HOUSE, KARIKKANAD VTC TALAPILLY DISTRICT THRISSUR- 680519 BY ADVS.P.M.RAFIQ M.REVIKRISHNAN AJEESH K.SASI MITHA SUDHINDRAN SRUTHY N. BHAT RAHUL SUNIL SRUTHY K.K ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031 SRI VIPIN NARAYAN- SR P.P ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.05.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..3170/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A.Nos.3169 & 3170 of 2022** **2** ## **`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. 3170 OF 2022 ``` ``` CRIME NO.474/2022 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR PETITIONER: ``` ``` GOVINDANKUTTY @MANI AGED 55 YEARS S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR., PALISSERY, PORAVOOR, KARIKKAD,THRISSUR PIN - 680519 BY ADVS. P.M.RAFIQ M.REVIKRISHNAN AJEESH K.SASI MITHA SUDHINDRAN RAHUL SUNIL SRUTHY N. BHAT SRUTHY K.K ``` ## **`RESPONDENT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031 SRI VIPIN NARAYAN- SR P.P ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.05.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..3169/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A.Nos.3169 & 3170 of 2022** **3** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------B.A.Nos.3169 & 3170 of 2022 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 06[th] day of May, 2022** ## **ORDER** These Bail Applications are filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code. These Bail Applications are filed by the accused in same crime number and therefore, these Bail Applications are disposed by a common order. 2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.474/2022 of Kunnamkulam Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with dangerous weapon and attacked the defacto complainant. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are not correct. The counsel also submitted that even before registration of this **B.A.Nos.3169 & 3170 of 2022** **4** crime, a case is registered against the defacto complainant and others as Crime No.473/2022. The counsel further submitted that the case against the defacto complainant is the main case and this is the counter case. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant them bail. The counsel further submitted that in the main case, the offence alleged includes the offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications and submitted that if this Court is granting bail, stringent conditions may be imposed. After hearing both sides and also taking into consideration that it is a case and counter 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 and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. **5** ## **B.A.Nos.3169 & 3170 of 2022** 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 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 **B.A.Nos.3169 & 3170 of 2022** **6** case, this Bail Applications are 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 dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. **7** ## **B.A.Nos.3169 & 3170 of 2022** 4. The petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 5. 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. 6. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10 am, till final report is filed. 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. JV sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** **8** ## **B.A.Nos.3169 & 3170 of 2022** ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3170/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 473/2022 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION DATED 04-04-2022 Annexure 2TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 474/ 2022 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION DATED 04-04-2022 Annexure 3TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED BY THE JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL REGARDING THE STAB WOUND OF THE APPLICANT ```