High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-05-06Bail granted with conditions.

Renjith v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No.3334 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Judgment Date: 2022-05-06
Court Decision / Holding: This Bail Application is allowed. The petitioner is to be released on bail on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court. The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer as required, shall cooperate with the investigation, and shall not induce or threaten witnesses. He shall not leave India without the court’s permission and shall not commit a similar offence. He must appear before the IO on all Mondays and Fridays at 10:00 am until final report is filed. If any condition is violated, bail may be cancelled in accordance with law. The prosecution and the victim may move for cancellation if conditions are breached.
Final Disposition: Bail granted with conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Renjith

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Station House Officer, Maryamuttom Police Station, Maraymuttoom P.O., Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M. Jayakrishnan
• Shaji Mathew N.M.

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Sreeja V., Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

Renjith, the sole accused in Crime No.221/2022 of Marayamuttom Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, approached this High Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail. The FIR, dated 04.04.2022, implicates him in offences including 341 (wrongful restraint), 294(b) (obscene acts in public), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon), 506(i) & (ii) (criminal intimidation), 427 (mischief causing loss), and 308 IPC (attempt to commit culpable homicide). The petitioner was arrested on 05.04.2022 and has remained in custody. The prosecution’s case asserts that, due to prior enmity, the accused restrained the de facto complainant on 03.04.2022 at Thottavaram, attempted to grab the purse, damaged the complainant’s possessions, and issued threats; on the same day, further threats, assault, and tearing of clothes occurred, with the complainant suffering a monetary loss of about Rs.24,000. The petitioner’s counsel argued for bail, noting the custody period and willingness to comply with conditions; the Public Prosecutor opposed, pointing to the seriousness of the offences. The court, invoking the rule that bail is the general rule and acknowledging that investigation is nearly complete, grants bail subject to stringent conditions, including bond, two sureties, appearance, and restrictions on travel and coercion. The decision cites Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement in support of the bail approach.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 CrPCIPC 341IPC 294(b)IPC 323IPC 324IPC 506(i)IPC 506(ii)IPC 427IPC 308

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule, jail is the exception
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner’s counsel contends that the accused has been in custody since 05.04.2022 and that the investigation is nearly complete. He emphasizes the non‑heinous nature of the offences and the accused’s willingness to comply with strict bail conditions, including bonding and regular reporting. It is argued that bail is a rule and the failure to grant bail would impede the accused’s ability to secure a fair trial, especially since no possibility of tampering with witnesses is suggested and the de facto complainant’s allegations are not of an inherently inhumane or irremediable nature. The defense asserts that the offences, though serious, do not warrant pretrial incarceration for an extended period, and that the accused poses minimal risk if conditions are imposed.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor counters that the offences are grave and the incidents involve threats, assault, and potential danger to the victim. He notes the substantial allegations and financial loss, which warrant caution. While conceding the investigation is near completion, the prosecutor urges the court to impose stringent conditions to safeguard the investigation, prevent witness tampering, and ensure the accused’s presence for trial. He urges that bail should not be granted lightly due to the seriousness of the offences and the possible impact on public order and safety.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, reinforcing the court’s approach to grant 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 Renjith 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 FRIDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 16TH VAISAKHA, 1944** **BAIL APPL. NO. 3334 OF 2022** **CRIME NO.221/2022 OF MARAYAMUTTAM POLICE STATION,** ## **THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 1430/2022 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE -III,NEYYATTINKARA** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** RENJITH AGED 27 YEARS S/O DHARMARAJAN, KUZHIVILAMELE PUTHEN VEEDU, VADAKARA, MARAYAMUTTOM, PERUNKADAVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 124. BY ADVS. M.JAYAKRISHNAN SHAJI MATHEW N.M. ## **RESPONDENT/STATE/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM , PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER MARYAMUTTOM POLICE STATION, MARAYAMUTTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695124 BY ADV.SMT.SREEJA V, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.3334 of 2022 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.3334 of 2022 ------------------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of May, 2022 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Petitioner is the sloe accused in Crime No.221 of 2022 of Marayamuttom Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(i) & (ii), 427 and 308 IPC. Petitioner was arrested on 05.04.2022 and from that date onwards he is in custody. 3.The prosecution case is that due to prior enmity the accused with an intention to cause grievous hurt to the _de facto_ complainant, wrongfully restrained the _de facto_ complainant on 03.04.2022 B.A.No.3334 of 2022 3 at 7.15 pm at Thottavaram and tried to grab the purse from the pocket of the _de facto_ complainant. At that time his spectacles fell down. It is alleged that the accused trampled the spectacles and torn off his wife's official papers and threatened him with dare consequences. Thereafter on the same day at 7.30 pm, the accused again came and threatened him. Thereafter the accused kicked him down and torn off his shirt and kicked on his chest. It is also alleged that the accused tried to hit his head with a granite stone. It is alleged that the _de facto_ complainant sustained a loss of Rs.24,000/- also. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 05.04.2022 onwards. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public B.A.No.3334 of 2022 4 Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner committed serious offences. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. But the petitioner is in custody from 05.04.2022 onwards. The investigation of the case is almost over. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail on stringent conditions. 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. Considering the dictum laid down in the B.A.No.3334 of 2022 5 above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: 1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. The petitioner shall appear before the 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/her from disclosing such facts to B.A.No.3334 of 2022 6 the Court or to any police officer. 3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. 5. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 10 am till final report is filed. 6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the B.A.No.3334 of 2022 7 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 B.A.No.3334 of 2022 8 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3334/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES AnnexureA1 CITIZEN COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.221/2022 OF MARAYAMUTTOM POLICE STATION DATED 04.04.2022 AnnexureA2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2022 IN CRL.M.P. NO.1430/2022 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT III, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE