Renjith.R v. State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` MONDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 1688 OF 2024`** ``` CRIME NO.200/2024 OF NOORANADU POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 21.02.2024 IN CRMP NO.754 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:`** ``` RENJITH.R AGED 31 YEARS S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, RENJITH BHAVANAM, KARIMULACKAL, KOMALLOOR P.O ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690505 ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.B.ARUNKUMAR PRATHAP.G.PADICKAL POOJA K.S. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER NOORANADU POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690504`** ``` BY ADV. SRI. C. S. HRITHWIK – SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1688 OF 2024 ``` ## **C.S.DIAS, J.** **-------------------------------------------------------B.A. No. 1688 OF 2024 ------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of March, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Code’), for an order of pre-arrest bail. 2. The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.200/2024 of the Nooranadu Police Station, Alappuzha registered against the accused (ten in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The essence of the prosecution allegation is that: on 11.02.2024 at around 18.15 hours, the ``` 3 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1688 OF 2024`** accused in prosecution of their common intention, while the defacto complainant was watching a procession, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with dangerous weapons, and the first accused abused the defacto complainant in vulgar language and fisted him on his nose. In the meantime, the second accused also used a weapon and hit on the defacto complainant’s forehead. Thereafter, the accused repeatedly beat the defacto complainant. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri. K. B. Arunkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C. S. Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The predicate offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section ``` 4 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1688 OF 2024`** 326 IPC. A reading of the First Information Report would substantiate that, the offence under Section 326 IPC will not be attracted against the petitioner, because it was the first accused, who caused the injury to the defacto complainant by assaulting with a weapon. The said offence has been incorporated against the petitioner, only to deny bail to him. In any given case, 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 there is a specific overt act alleged against the petitioner that, he along with the first accused had assaulted the defacto complainant who suffered a nasal bone fracture. He made available the Accident Register cum Wound Certificate dated 11.02.2024, issued by ``` 5 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1688 OF 2024`** the Kuriakose Chavara Memorial Hospital, Nooranadu, to substantiate the nature of injuries sustained by the defacto complainant. He also contended that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary and recovery is to be effected. If the petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it would hamper with the full and proper investigation of the crime. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 7. The prosecution allegation is that, the accused 1 and 2 along with the other accused had, in prosecution of their common intention, attacked the defacto complainant with weapons and he suffered grievous injuries in the incident. 8. The petitioner along with the fourth accused had moved before the Court of Sessions Judge, Alappuzha and filed Crl.M.P. No.754/2024. The ``` 6 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1688 OF 2024`** learned Sessions Judge, by Annexure-1 order dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, principally on the ground that there is specific overt act alleged against the petitioner, that the defacto complainant sustained grievous injuries and the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary. 9. 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 Satishchandra Ratanlal the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia case [(1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) ``` 7 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1688 OF 2024 ``` 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; (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly ``` 8 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1688 OF 2024 ``` 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 ``` 9 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1688 OF 2024 ``` 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. 10. 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 a pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary privilege, which should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred 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 would misuse his liberty. 11. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially taking ``` 10 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1688 OF 2024 ``` into account the fact that there is a specific overt act alleged against the petitioner, that some weapon was used to cause an injury to the defacto complainant, which prima facie stands corroborated by the Accident Register cum Wound Certificate, that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary and the recovery is to be effected, and further the findings of the learned Sessions Judge in Annexure-1 order, I am convinced that the petitioner has not made out exceptional grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.438 of the Code. Hence, I hold that this is not a fit case to grant an order of pre-arrest bail. Resultantly, the bail application is dismissed. Nonetheless, I direct that, if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today, he shall be interrogated and, ``` 11 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1688 OF 2024 ``` thereafter, be produced before the jurisdictional Court on the date of surrender itself. Then, if the petitioner moves application for bail, the jurisdictional Court shall, untrammelled by any observations in this order, consider the bail application on its merits. 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** BR ``` 12 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1688 OF 2024`** ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1688/2024`** ``` PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES Annexure 1THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.02.2024 IN CRL.M.P.NO. 754/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA ``` ``` RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURES: NIL ```