Rahul G v. State of Kerala

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 30TH MAGHA, 1945 ``` ## `BAIL APPL. NO. 73 OF 2024` ``` CRIME NO.1736/2023 OF PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM ``` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` RAHUL G, AGED 26 YEARS S/O. GIRISAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT G.R. NIVAS, VEPPALUMMOODU, BHOOTHAKULAM P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691302 ``` ``` BY ADVS.S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM) SALMATH A. K.VIJAYAN NAMITHA RAJESH ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` - `1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031` - `2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691301` - `3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KOLLAM IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT 3 AS PER ORDER DATED 24-1-24` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ## `SR PP SMT SEETHA S` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.73/2024 -:2:- Dated this the 19[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 petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.1736/2023 of Paravoor Police Station, Kollam, registered against the accused (two in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 324, 326, 294(b), 506, 308, 341 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(in short, ‘IPC’). 3. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 15.11.2023 at around 09.15 p.m., while the de-facto complainant (injured) was watching cricket on his mobile phone, the accused Nos.1 & 2 who were riding a motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly picked up a quarrel with the injured and the accused Nos.1 & 2 hit the injured with a piece of brick and an B.A.No.73/2024 -:3:- iron rod. Thereafter, the friends of the accused Nos.1 & 2 also went on another bike and hit the injured. Had the injured not warded off the attack, it would have resulted in his death. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri. S. Sreekumar (Kollam), the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. Even a reading of Annexure-A1 First Information Report[FIR] would substantiate the falsity in the crime. Actually, the injured met with an accident while watching cricket on his mobile phone and walking on the road. The injuries sustained by him are of such a nature. Sections 326 & 308 have been incorporated just to deny bail to the B.A.No.73/2024 -:4:- petitioner. The petitioner’s custodial interrogation 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. She contended that, the injured had suffered grievous injures. She made available the treatment certificate issued by the Associate Professor of the Government Medical College Hospital, Kollam, to substantiate the fact that the injured had suffered a fracture of C4 spine. He had undergone surgery. The CT scan report showed that he had Tiny Hyperdense focus Measuring 4mm in the anterior inter hemisphere fissure, undisplaced linear fracture on the right zygomatic arch and scalp hematoma on the left parietal region. She also made available the other medical records to prove the fact that the injured had suffered serious injuries due to the alleged attack by the accused. She contended that the -:5:- B.A.No.73/2024 investigation in the case is still in progress and the recovery is to be effected. If the petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it would hamper with the full investigation. 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: B.A.No.73/2024 -:6:- - (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 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 B.A.No.73/2024 -:7:- 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.” ## 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 a pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary privilege, which should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred B.A.No.73/2024 -:8:- upon the court must be properly exercised after proper application of mind to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The Court has to be prima facie satisfied that the accusation levelled against the applicant is only to enrope him in the crime and to misuse his liberty. 9. On an evaluation of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, especially after going through the treatment records of the injured and on comprehending the seriousness, gravity, and nature of the offences alleged against the petitioner, that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary, and that the recovery is to be effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioner has not made out any exceptional grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of the Code. Hence, I hold that this is not a ## B.A.No.73/2024 -:9:- 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 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** DST/19.02.24 //True copy// P.A. To Judge