High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-07-24Bail applications allowed with conditions; conn...

Connected Bail Applications under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.: Aji @ Ajith Kumar V; Jeejo Yohannan; Athulraj K; Vishnu V.V.; Vyshak K v State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NOS. 10344/22, 10343/22, 122/23

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2023-07-24
Court Decision / Holding: This Bail Applications are allowed with the following directions: (i) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation; (ii) After interrogation, if the IO proposes arrest, they shall be released on bail on executing bonds of Rs.50,000 each with two solvent sureties; (iii) Petitioners shall appear before the IO for interrogation as required and cooperate with the investigation; (iv) Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court; (v) Petitioners shall not commit any offence similar to the one alleged; (vi) Petitioners shall appear before the IO on all Mondays and Fridays at 11.00 a.m. till final report is filed; (vii) If any condition is violated, bail may be cancelled by the Court. The interim order not to arrest remains in force until final disposition. The court relies on the principle that bail is the rule and on the authority of Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement to justify granting bail in these circumstances.
Final Disposition: Bail applications allowed with conditions; connected cases disposed by common judgment.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Aji @ Ajith Kumar V
Jeejo Yohannan
Athulraj K
Vishnu.V.V
Vyshak.K

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor
Station House Officer, Cherpu Police Station
SMT. MAYA M.N., PP

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• C.A. Anoop R.
• Vanesha Viswambaran
• Sarath Babu Kottakkal
• Jeejo Yohannan
• Preetha.K
• Tissy Rose K Cheriyan

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor (for State)
• State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor
• Public Prosecutor (Cherpu)

Case Synopsis & Summary

These bail applications under section 438 Cr.P.C. are connected and disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioners AjI @ Ajith Kumar V; Jeejo Yohannan; Athulraj K; Vishnu V.V.; Vyshak.K are accused in Crime No. 926/2022 of Cherpu Police Station, alleging offences under sections 323, 324, 326 read with 34 IPC. The prosecution case is that the petitioners and other accused attacked the defacto complainant in a public place, causing a nasal bone injury; it is argued that the weapon was not recovered and the injuries were serious. The petitioners' counsel urged bail on grounds of pendency since 2022 and to ensure fair trial; the Public Prosecutor contended that the injuries were serious and the case is still under investigation. The court observed that although the allegations are grave, the bail applications have been pending for long, and it would be unjust to dismiss them at this juncture; an interim order not to arrest remains in force. Relying on Chidambaram P. v Directorate of Enforcement, the court reaffirmed the general principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and proceeded to grant bail with safeguards: the petitioners must appear before the IO within ten days for interrogation; if arrest is proposed they may be released on bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties; they must co-operate, not leave the jurisdiction, not commit similar offences, and appear for interrogation on Mondays and Fridays at 11.00 a.m. until final report is filed; violation can lead to cancellation of bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Sections 323, 324, 326 read with Section 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that bail is a cherished right under Cr.P.C. and, given the pendency since 2022, it would be fair to grant bail with reasonable conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and a fair trial. They emphasised the lack of recovery of the weapon and urged that continued detention is unwarranted in view of the long pendency and the principle that bail is the rule.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, through the Public Prosecutor, opposed bail citing serious injuries to the defacto complainant and the fact that the weapon was not recovered, arguing that custodial measures and ongoing investigation are necessary to prevent tampering with evidence and to protect public order.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	The Court used this decision to reaffirm the core principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, guiding its decision to grant bail with conditions in connected cases.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Connected Bail Applications under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.: Aji @ Ajith Kumar V; Jeejo Yohannan; Athulraj K; Vishnu V.V.; Vyshak K v State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 10344 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER MC 1608/2022 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,** **THRISSUR** ## **PETITIONER:** AJI@AJITH KUMAR. V AGED 32 YEARS, S/O AJAYAKUMAR, VILAMBATH(H), PERUMBILLISSERY, CHERPU.P.O., CHEVVOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680561 BY ADVS. C.A.ANOOP R.KRISHNA VANESHA VISWAMBARAN 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHERPU POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680561 3 JEEJO YOHANNAN AGED 46 YEARS S/O YOHANNAN, KURUTHUKULAM(H), CHEVVOOR DESOM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680561 BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR TISSY ROSE K CHERIYAN KAYYALAPARAMPIL PREETHA.K(K/000102/2019) ## **RESPONDENTS:** SMT. MAYA M.N., PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.07.2023, ALONG WITH Bail Appl.122/2023, 10343/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **BAIL APPL. NOS.10344, 10343/22 & 122/23** **2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 122 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER:** ATHULRAJ K AGED 23 YEARS, S/O K.K.RAJAN, KALLIYATH HOUSE, NALLUKUNNATHUSSERY, P.O PERINCHEERY, THRISSUR, KERALA PIN - 680586 BY ADV SARATH BABU KOTTAKKAL ## **RESPONDENT:** STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.07.2023, ALONG WITH Bail Appl.10344/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **BAIL APPL. NOS.10344, 10343/22 & 122/23** **3** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 10343 OF 2022 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT MC 1608/2022 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 VISHNU.V.V AGED 30 YEARS, S/O VENUGOPAL, VAZHELIPARAMBIL (H), PERUMBILLISSERY (WEST), CHERPU P.O, CHEVVOOR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680561 2 VYSHAK.K AGED 33 YEARS S/O JAYASINGH, KAVUMATHIL(H), PERUMBILLISSERY P.O., CHERPU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680561 BY ADVS. C.A.ANOOP R.KRISHNA VANESHA VISWAMBARAN 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHERPU POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680561 BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR TISSY ROSE K CHERIYAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.07.2023, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..10344/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **BAIL APPL. NOS.10344, 10343/22 & 122/23** **4** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **--------------------------------------------------** B.A.Nos.10343, 10344 of 2022 and 122 of 2023 **------------------------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of July, 2023** ## **O R D E R** These Bail Applications are connected and are filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and therefore, I am disposing of these bail applications by a common judgment. 2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.926/2022 of Cherpu Police Station. Above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326 r/w 34 of the IPC. 3. The Prosecution case in brief is that the petitioners and the other accused with a common intention attacked the defacto complainant in a public place and the defacto complainant sustained a nasal bone injury. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. **BAIL APPL. NOS.10344, 10343/22 & 122/23** **5** 5. When these bail applications came up for consideration, this Court directed the Investigating Officer not to arrest the petitioners. The bail application is pending before this Court from 2022 onwards. Even now the above order is in force. 6. Today, the matter was heard in detail. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the defacto complainant sustained serious injury and the weapon of the offence is not recovered. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant also submitted that he is a police officer and he was attacked in a public function in which his daughter's dance program was going on. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant also opposes the bail application. 7. It is true that the allegation against the petitioners are very serious. The defacto complainant sustained serious injury also. But since, these bail applications are pending before this Court from 2022 onwards, it will be unjustifiable to dismiss these bail applications at this distance of time. Moreover, the prosecution also have not filed any petition to vacate the **BAIL APPL. NOS.10344, 10343/22 & 122/23** **6** interim order already passed by this Court and that order is in force even now. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there can be a direction to the petitioners to cooperate with the investigation. The petitioners can be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer twice in a week so that the investigation can be completed immediately. 8. 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. 9. 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. Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer **BAIL APPL. NOS.10344, 10343/22 & 122/23** **7** within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation; 2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes 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) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned; 3. 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 them 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; **BAIL APPL. NOS.10344, 10343/22 & 122/23** **8** 6. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 11.00 a.m., 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. **Sd/P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SVP