Moideenkutty Pulikkal v. State of Kerala

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 5TH MAGHA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 11635 OF 2023 ``` ``` CRIME NO.869/2023 OF CHERPULASSERY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD ``` ## `PETITIONER/ACCUED:` ``` MOIDEENKUTTY PULIKKAL AGED 49 YEARS S/O. ABBAS, PULIKKAL HOUSE, KANDANCHIRA, NELLAYA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 679335 ``` ``` BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW ``` ## `RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:` ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI., PIN - 682031 ``` ``` BY SR PP SMT NEEMA T V ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.11635 of 2023 ## -:2:- ## Dated this the 25[th] day of January, 2024 **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of pre-arrest bail. 2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.869/2023 of the Cherpulassery Police Station, Palakkad, registered against him for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is that: around6 a.m, on 25.12.2023, the body of a person named Ayyappan (deceased) was found in the agricultural property belonging to one Jabbar. It is alleged that the deceased had entered the property for the purpose of diverting the water to his agricultural land. The property was taken on lease by the accused and he had put up an B.A.No.11635 of 2023 ## -:3:- electrical fence. The deceased came in contact with the fence and got electrocuted. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri. Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. In fact, the petitioner and the deceased had jointly take the property on lease for cultivation. As the property is adjacent to forest land and is always by wild animals, the petitioner and the deceased had put up an electric fence. The deceased was a person who was suffering from Vertigo. In all probability, the deceased may have suffered high blood pressure, fell on the electric fence, and got electrocuted. The petitioner is no way connected with the death of the deceased. The Investigating Officer is attempting to B.A.No.11635 of 2023 ## -:4:- arrest the petitioner on a mere suspicion. The petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. At any rate, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is only at the nascent stage. The investigation has revealed that the property was taken on lease exclusively by the petitioner from its landowner. The petitioner executed the electrical fence in violation of provisions of the Electricity Act and rules framed thereunder. When the deceased entered the property to take water, he got electrocuted. Thereafter, the petitioner attempted to destroy the evidence by concealing the dead body. The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary for the proper and fair investigation of the case. The recovery is to be effected. If the petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it B.A.No.11635 of 2023 ## -:5:- will hamper the investigation and prejudice the prosecution. 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: 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 B.A.No.11635 of 2023 ## -:6:- 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 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 B.A.No.11635 of 2023 -:7:- ## 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 applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime and his liberty is being misused. B.A.No.11635 of 2023 ## -:8:- 9. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the materials placed on record, particularly taking into account the nature, gravity, and seriousness of the offence alleged against the petitioner, that the investigation in the case is only at the nascent stage, that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary, and that the recovery is to be effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.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 petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today, he shall be interrogated and, thereafter, be produced before the jurisdictional Court on the date of surrender itself. Then, if the petitioner moves an application for bail, the jurisdictional Court shall, untrammelled by any observations in this order, consider B.A.No.11635 of 2023 ## -:9:- the bail application on its merits and as expeditiously as possible. If the petitioner does not surrender before the Investigating Officer as directed above, the Investigating Officer shall be free to arrest the petitioner as if no order has been passed in this case. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** mtk/25.01.24