High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-05-04Bail Granted / Bail allowed with conditions.

Rahul Manoj; Subin Alexander; Nandu Narayanan v. The State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 3337 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2022-05-04
Court Decision / Holding: The Bail Application is allowed. The petitioners are to be released on bail on executing bonds of Rs. 50,000 each with two solvent sureties, to appear before the Investigating Officer as required, to adhere to conditions including not leaving India without permission, not entering the Thiruvalla jurisdiction for 60 days (or until final report), not committing another offence, providing contact and residence details, and submitting to the Court’s jurisdiction for cancellation in case of violation.
Final Disposition: Bail Granted / Bail allowed with conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rahul Manoj
Subin Alexander
Nandu Narayanan

Respondents

The State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M. Kiranlal
• R. Rajesh (Varkala)
• Manu Ramachandran
• T. S. Sarath
• Sameer M Nair
• Geethu Krishnan
• Harsha Susan
• Sabikh Mohammed V.S
• V. M. Vishnu Mohan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sreeja V. (Senior Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala bail order concerns three accused in Crime No.516/2022 of Thiruvalla Police Station. The petitioners Rahul Manoj, Subin Alexander and Nandu Narayanan were arrested on 10.04.2022 in connection with alleged offences including Sections 153, 326A, 324 and 341 r/w 34 IPC during a Palm Sunday procession at Thukalassery Latin Catholic Church. The prosecution contends that the accused, with intent to spoil the divine atmosphere and obstruct the procession, drove a car through the middle of the procession, shouted at the complainant, and deployed pepper spray. The petitioners moved for bail under Section 439 CrPC, arguing non-commitment and seeking release subject to conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, noting serious allegations and the petitioners’ antecedents, but acknowledged the necessity of careful consideration. The court, citing Supreme Court authority that bail is the rule and detention is the exception, weighed the circumstances and concluded that bail can be granted with conditions to ensure fair trial and investigation. It directed bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, requirement to appear before the Investigating Officer as required, restrictions on travel and residence, no entering the jurisdictional limit of Thiruvalla P.S. for 60 days or until final report, and reporting obligations, with court retaining power to cancel bail on violation. The judgment underscores the principle that bail is a fundamental presumption in criminal proceedings and relies on Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement to justify the approach.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 CrPCIPC sections 153, 326A, 324, 341 read with Section 34

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
Grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception (as per Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement, 2019 (16) SCALE 870)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that they have not committed the offences. They have been in custody since 10.04.2022 and are willing to comply with reasonable conditions to ensure fair trial. They emphasize lack of direct involvement in the alleged obstructive act and request bail under Section 439 CrPC subject to conditions that safeguard the investigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing serious allegations and possible criminal antecedents, and argues that the petitioners’ release could impede the investigation and affect public order; nonetheless acknowledges that bail may be granted with appropriate safeguards if warranted by the circumstances.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited to reinforce the proposition that bail is the rule and detention is the exception; used as authority for granting bail in the present case.

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 Rahul Manoj; Subin Alexander; Nandu Narayanan v. The 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. 3337 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3:** 1 RAHUL MANOJ AGED 26 YEARS RAHUL MANOJ, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O MANOJKUMAR, SANKARAMANGALAM THAZHCHAYIL HOUSE, CROSS JUNCTION, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT , PIN - 689101 2 SUBIN ALEXANDER AGED 25 YEARS SUBIN ALEXANDER, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O ALEXANDER CHACKO, PAPPANAVELIL HOUSE, KUTTAPZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN - 689103 3 NANDU NARAYANAN AGED 26 YEARS S/O NARAYANANKUTTY, MANAKKATTU HOUSE, KUNNAMTHANAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT , PIN - 689581 BY ADVS. M.KIRANLAL R.RAJESH (VARKALA) MANU RAMACHANDRAN T.S.SARATH SAMEER M NAIR GEETHU KRISHNAN HARSHA SUSAN SAM SABIKH MOHAMMED V.S V.M.VISHNU MOHAN **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:** BAIL APPL. NO. 3337 OF 2022 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ADV. SREEJA V- SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 3337 OF 2022 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------B.A.No.3337 of 2022 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4[th] day of May, 2022 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.516 of 2022 of Thiruvalla Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 153, 326A, 324 and 341 r/w 34 IPC. Petitioners were arrested on 10.04.2022 and they are in custody from that date onwards. 3.The prosecution case is that during the Palm Sunday Procession of the Thukalassery Latin Catholic Church, the accused with the intention of spoiling the divine atmosphere and for BAIL APPL. NO. 3337 OF 2022 4 purposefully obstructing the smooth conduct of the procession on 10.04.2022 at 9.30 AM intentionally drove a car bearing Registration No.KL 33-7772 through the middle of the procession. It is also alleged that the accused shouted at the complainant and triggered a pepper spray on the face of the complainant and his friend. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners have not committed the offence. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are in custody from 10.04.2022 onwards. The counsel also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant them bail. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. BAIL APPL. NO. 3337 OF 2022 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners have got criminal antecedents. It is true that the allegation against the petitioners are very serious. But the petitioners are in custody from 10.04.2022 onwards. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there can be a direction to the petitioners not to enter the jurisdictional limit of Thiruvalla Police Station for a period of 60 days or till the final report is filed. If there is any specific reason to enter the jurisdictional limit of Thiruvalla Police Station, the petitioners are free to file appropriate application before the jurisdictional court and the jurisdictional court shall consider the same in accordance to law. With the above condition, the bail application can be allowed. 5. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the BAIL APPL. NO. 3337 OF 2022 **==> picture [7 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** 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. 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 be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the BAIL APPL. NO. 3337 OF 2022 7 like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. The 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 him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 3. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. BAIL APPL. NO. 3337 OF 2022 8 4. 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. 5. Petitioners shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of Thiruvalla Police Station for a period of 60 days or till the final report is filed in the above case. Petitioners shall give the Phone Number and the details of the place where they are going to reside during the above period. 6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional BAIL APPL. NO. 3337 OF 2022 **==> picture [7 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even 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 there is any violation of the above conditions. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** DM BAIL APPL. NO. 3337 OF 2022 10 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3337/2022** ## PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 516/2022 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P. NO.653/2022 DATED 21.04.2022 BY THE JFMC, THIRUVALLA //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE