Rahul R.K v. State of Kerala

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 3RD MAGHA, 1945 ``` ## `BAIL APPL. NO. 10713 OF 2023` ``` CRIME NO.1416/2023 OF NARUVAMOODU POLICE STATION, ``` ## `THIRUVANANTHAPURAM` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 3051/2023 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ``` ## `PETITIONER/ACCUSED:` ``` RAHUL R.K AGED 35 YEARS S/O RAVEENDRAN NAIR, PANACHAKAL VEEDU, MARANCHALKONAM, NARUVAMOODU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695528 ``` ``` BY ADV SAIJO HASSAN ``` ## `RESPONDENT/STATE:` ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` BY SR PP SMT SEETHA S ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.10713 of 2023 -:2:- ## Dated this the 23[rd] 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.1416/2023 of the Naravammoodu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is that: around 4.45 p.m, on 13.11.2023, the accused went on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-20-N-4707, restrained the de facto complainant, and fisted him on his chest. Thereafter, he used a chopper and hacked ## B.A.No.10713 of 2023 -:3:- the de facto complainant on his head, causing a deep injury. Then, the accused followed him and again attempted to hack the de facto complainant. Somehow, the defacto complainant escaped from the seen of occurrence. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri. Saijo Hassan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha.S, 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. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not necessary. Section 307 of the IPC has been deliberately incorporated to deny bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, B.A.No.10713 of 2023 ## -:4:- an order of pre-arrest bail may be passed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that the petitioner assaulted the de facto complainant with a chopper on his head, resulting in grievous injuries to the de facto complainant. This aspect is describable from the Accident Register Cum-Wound Certificate dated 13.11.2023. The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary. The investigation in the case is progressing, and recovery is to be effected. 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 ## B.A.No.10713 of 2023 ## -:5:- 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 cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people; -:6:- ## B.A.No.10713 of 2023 (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 -:7:- ## B.A.No.10713 of 2023 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. After bestowing my anxious consideration of the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the nature, gravity, and seriousness of the offences alleged against the petitioner, that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary, that the investigation is in progress, that the recovery has to be effected, and also taking note of the injuries reflected in the Accident Register-Cum-Wound Certificate, 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 am of the view that this is not a fit case to grant an order of pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the bail application is dismissed. 9. Nonetheless, I direct that, if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer within 10 B.A.No.10713 of 2023 ## -:8:- 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** mtk/23.01.24 ## B.A.No.10713 of 2023 ## -:9:- ## `APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 10713/2023` ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` |`Annexure`|`1`|`TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.`| |---|---|---| |||`1416/202 OF NARUVAMOODU POLICE STATION`| |`Annexure`|`2`|`TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORTS ISSUED`| |||`BY THE AMRITA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL`| |||`SCIENCES`| |`Annexure`|`3`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED`| |||`BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15.11.2023`| |||`BEFORE THE POLICE AUTHORITIES`| |`Annexure`|`4`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2023`| |||`PASSED BY THE SESSIONS COURT,`| |||`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN CRL MC NO. 3051`| |||`OF 2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER`|