Jabirali A.H and Sunil C v. State of Kerala

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PRESENT` ## `THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS` ``` THURSDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945 ``` ## `BAIL APPL. NO. 1009 OF 2024` ``` CRIME NO.61/2024 OF GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR ``` ## `PETITIONERS:` ``` 1JABIRALI A.H AGED 46 YEARS S/O. HAMEED , AMBALATH HOUSE, VATTEKKAD P.O, KADAPPURAM, THRISSUR DT., PIN – 680512 2SUNIL C. AGED 44 YEARS S/O.SANKARAN, CHATHANPULLY HOUSE, THIRUVEGAPPURA, PATTAMBI, PALKKAD DT., PIN – 679304 BY ADVS.A.HAROON RASHEED MUHAMMADALI MANEKKATHODI ``` ``` RESPONDENT: ``` ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.1009/2024 -:2:- Dated this the 15[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 in Crime No.61/2024 of Guruvayur Temple Police Station, Thrissur, registered against them, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 269, 323, 294(b), 506 & 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The concise case of the prosecution is that: on 25.01.2024, at around 11.40 p.m., the accused Nos.1 & 2 were found discharging septic tank waste into the public canal in front of Galaxy Inn, situated on Outer Ring Road of Guruvayur town. On getting information, the de-facto complainant, the Health Inspector of the Guruvayur Municipality, directed the accused to stop B.A.No.1009/2024 -:3:- discharging the waste. In response to the said direction, the accused shouted at the de-facto complainant in vulgar language and attempted to physically assault him and prevented him from discharging his official duties. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri `.` A.Haroon Rasheed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. C. S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the crime. The present crime has been filed by the de-facto complainant deliberately to harass the petitioners. The de-facto complainant had certain issues with Hotel Management where the petitioners are employed, while he stayed there. It is out of that animosity, the present crime has been registered. The B.A.No.1009/2024 -:4:- very fact that the crime has been registered seven days after the incident proves the falsity in the present crime. At any rate, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be allowed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. He submitted that the petitioners have committed a grave offence by letting off septic waste into a public canal. When the de-facto complainant attempted to prevent them from doing the same, they not only disobeyed his directions but also attempted to physically assault him, thereby committing the above offences. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary. The investigation in the case is at the preliminary stage. If the application is allowed, it would hamper the investigation. 7. In **Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State** B.A.No.1009/2024 -:5:- ## **of Maharashtra** [(2011) 1 SCC 694] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: **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 B.A.No.1009/2024 -:6:- 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 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. B.A.No.1009/2024 -:7:- 8. In **Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and Anr.** [(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 applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime and his liberty is being misused. 9. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submission made across the Bar, and on being prima-facie satisfied of the accusations, and on comprehending the nature, gravity, and seriousness of the offence alleged against the petitioners, that the investigation in the case is at its preliminary stage, and B.A.No.1009/2024 -:8:- that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary, I am of the definite view that the petitioners have not made out any exceptional circumstances entitling them to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of the Code. Therefore, I hold that this is not a fit case to grant 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 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 B.A.No.1009/2024 -:9:- above, the Investigating Officer shall be free to arrest the petitioners as if no order has been passed in this case. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/15.02.24 //True copy// P.A. To Judge