High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-05-04Bail granted with conditions: appearance before...

Premadasan v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 2476 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Single Judge
Judgment Date: 2022-05-04
Court Decision / Holding: The Bail Application is allowed; the petitioner Premadasan is granted bail with conditions as detailed in the order.
Final Disposition: Bail granted with conditions: appearance before IO within two weeks; Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties; appearance for interrogation as required; not to leave India without permission; not to commit similar offences; to appear before IO on Mondays at 10 am for 30 days or till final report; bail cancelable on violation.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Premadasan

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Nireesh Mathew

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

Premadasan's bail application under Section 438 CrPC was heard by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court. The petitioner, aged 42, was named in FIR No. 79/2022 of Chalissery Police Station, registered for offences under IPC sections 447 (criminal trespass), 324 (hurt), and later 308 (attempt to murder) with the latter added subsequently. The alleged incident occurred on 26.02.2022 at about 9 PM when the accused trespassed into the defacto complainant's house and assaulted him with a steel pipe, causing injuries. The petitioner contends that even if the facts are true, the offense under Sec. 308 IPC is not established; the addition of that section was to facilitate arrest, and there is a family dispute about burial ground. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, but suggested that if bail is granted, stringent conditions may be imposed. The judge acknowledged that the offences are serious; however, delay in lodging the First Information Statement cannot by itself justify denial of bail. Relying on Supreme Court authorities—Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Siddharth v. State of UP—the court reaffirmed that bail is the rule and that custodial interrogation should be avoided if not necessary. On that basis, the application was allowed with conditions: appearance before the IO within two weeks; bond Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; weekly appearances; not leave the country; not commit similar offences; and biweekly interrogations on Mondays for 30 days, with potential cancellation if violated.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of CrPCSections 447, 324, 308 of IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
Personal liberty is a fundamental right; arrest should be justified; distinction between power to arrest and justification for arrest

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner’s counsel argued that even if the allegations are true, the offence under Section 308 IPC is not made out. The addition of Section 308 was to enable arrest rather than to establish a genuine case of attempt to commit murder. The alleged incident occurred on 26.02.2022 and the First Information Statement was lodged only on 05.03.2022, indicating possible delay but not necessarily fatal to bail. There is a family dispute regarding a burial ground between the petitioner’s family and the defacto complainant’s family. The counsel stressed that custodial interrogation is not strictly necessary and that bail should be granted with stringent conditions to ensure cooperation with investigation and to prevent interference with witnesses.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed unconditional bail but submitted that if bail is granted, it should be subject to stringent conditions. It was argued that the offences are serious and the relationship between petitioner and the defacto complainant is close (relatives), which warrants careful balancing against personal liberty. The prosecution acknowledged the delayed FIR but urged that the gravity of the alleged offences and risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses justify close monitoring through bail conditions.

Cited Precedents (7)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Court states bail principle that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception to secure a fair trial.
Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another	2021(5)KHC 353	Positive	Judgment considered the point in detail, reinforcing personal liberty and non-mandatory arrest.
Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others	1994 KHC 189	Positive	Arrest must be justified; personal liberty guidance cited in balance with investigative needs.
Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others	(1994) 4 SCC 260	Positive	Leading authority on arrest and personal liberty cited in context of bail jurisprudence.
Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others	1994 KLT 919	Positive	Arrest and custody principles referenced; emphasizes judicious use of police power.
Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others	AIR 1994 SC 1349	Positive	Arrest and personal liberty considerations articulated by Supreme Court.
Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others	1994 CriLJ 1981	Positive	Arrest justification principles cited across multiple reporting formats.

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 Premadasan 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 14TH VAISAKHA, 1944** **BAIL APPL. NO. 2476 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER/S:** PREMADASAN AGED 42 YEARS SON OF CHAKUTTY, KALATHIL NJALIL HOUSE, CHALISSERY, PERUMANNUR, PALAKKAD,, PIN - 679536 BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW ## **RESPONDENT/S:** STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SMT.SREEJA.V, SR.PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **BAIL APPL. NO. 2476 OF 2022** **2** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.2476 of 2022 ------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of May, 2022 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The petitioner is the accused in crime No.79/2022 of Chalissery Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 447, 324 and 308 of the IPC. Originally the case was registered under Section 447 and 324 of the IPC and the offence under Section 308 of the IPC was added subsequently. 3. The prosecution case is that on 26.02.2022 at about 21.00 hours, the accused trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and attacked the defacto complainant with a steel pipe causing injuries. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Section 308 of the IPC **BAIL APPL. NO. 2476 OF 2022** **3** is not made out. The Counsel submitted that the offence under Section 308 of the IPC is subsequently added only to see that the petitioner is behind the bar. The Counsel submitted that the alleged offence occurred on 26.02.2022 and the FIS was filed only on 05.03.2022. The Counsel submitted that there is some dispute regarding a family burial ground between the petitioner's family and the defacto complainant's family. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that if this Court is granting bail, stringent conditions may be imposed. It is true that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious. It is also true that there is some delay in lodging the FIS. That alone is not a reason to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner and the defacto complainant are relatives. Section 308 of IPC is added subsequently. According to the petitioner, there is some family dispute regarding a burial ground. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I think custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary in this case. **BAIL APPL. NO. 2476 OF 2022** **4** 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 189: (1994) 4 SCC 260: 1994 **BAIL APPL. NO. 2476 OF 2022** **5** (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 arresting officer concerned. 3. The petitioner shall appear before the **BAIL APPL. NO. 2476 OF 2022** **6** Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner 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. 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 suspected. 6. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10 am for a period of 30 days or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier. 7. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even **BAIL APPL. NO. 2476 OF 2022** **7** 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** Nsd **BAIL APPL. NO. 2476 OF 2022** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2476/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.79/2022 OF CHALISSERY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT