Ramanujan Pillai v. State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 1279 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.110/2023 OF PAMPA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` RAMANUJAN PILLAI, AGED 60 YEARS S/O. C.K.BHASKARA KARANAVAR, RESIDING AT KALIYILIL KIZHAKKATHIL, KANNEMEL CHERRY, MARUTHADI, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691581 ``` ## **`BY ADV S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM)`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** ``` 2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PAMPA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. NO.1279 of 2024** ``` 2 ``` ## **Dated this the 5[th] day of March, 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 accused in Crime No.110/2023 of the Pampa Police Station, Pathanamthitta registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 153, 465, 468, 469, 471, 120-B r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The crux of the prosecution case is that; on 12.12.2023, at around 21.22 hours, the accused created a fake video and posted in the whatsapp group named ‘Save Ayyappa Seva Sangham’, in order to tarnish the image of the Police, Devaswom Board and the State Government. The accused attempted to create riot **B.A. NO.1279 of 2024** ``` 3 ``` among the public by cheating the Ayyappa devotees and the general public. The message was forwarded through the petitioner’s mobile number. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri. S.Sreekumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusation levelled against him. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime. Even assuming the allegations in Annexure A1 are true, the offence under Section 468 of IPC will not be attracted. At any rate, 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. He contended that the **B.A. NO.1279 of 2024** ``` 4 ``` petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary, because it is from the petitioner's mobile phone that the message was forwarded. The mobile phone is to be recovered. If the petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it would hamper with the full and proper investigation of the case. 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. **B.A. NO.1279 of 2024** ``` 5 ``` 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; (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 **B.A. NO.1279 of 2024** ``` 6 ``` 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 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 ``` 7 ``` ## **B.A. NO.1279 of 2024** 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. 9. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially on comprehending the fact that the message was forwarded from the petitioner’s phone, I prima facie find that the offence under Section 468 of IPC is made out, that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary and recovery is to be effected. Hence, I am convinced that the petitioner has not made out any exceptional grounds to invoke the extraordinary 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. Nonetheless, I direct that, if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer within 10 ``` 8 ``` ## **B.A. NO.1279 of 2024** 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 in accordance with law. 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** **rmm/5/3/2024**