Retheesh R., Baiju R. and Kamal K. v. State of Kerala

## **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. 3340 OF 2022 CRIME NO.339/2022 OF SOORANADU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** 1 RETHEESH.R AGED 33 YEARS S/O.RAVEENDRAN, RETHEESH BHAVANAM, PADIJATTA KIZHAKKU, SOORANAD NORTH P.O, KUNNATHOOR THALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690561 2 BAIJU.R AGED 36 YEARS S/O RAVI, BAIJU BHAVANAM, PADIJATTA KIZHAKKU, SOORANAD NORTH P.O, KUNNATHOOR THALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN - 690561 3 KAMAL.K AGED 34 YEARS S/O KOCHUCHERUKKAN, VAKKE VADAKKETHIL, PAVUMBA.P.O, THAZHAVA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAGAPPALLY THALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690574 BY ADV P.V.DILEEP ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BAIL APPL. NO. 3340 OF 2022 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER SOORANAD POLICE STATION, SOORANAD .P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN – 690522 BY ADV.SRI.VIPIN NARAYANAN, 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. 3340 OF 2022 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------B.A.No.3340 of 2022 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of May, 2022** ## **ORDER** This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Petitioners are apprehending arrest in Crime No.339/2022 of Sooranad Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners and others alleging offences _inter alia_ under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 26.03.2022 at 7.30 pm, 25 identifiable volunteers appointed in connection with the temple festival of Poruvazhi Peruviruthi Malanada Temple, unlawfully assembled together and assaulted the defacto complainant with a stump on the various parts of the body. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the BAIL APPL. NO. 3340 OF 2022 **==> picture [7 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the incident is not happened as alleged by the petitioners. The counsel also submitted that the alleged incident occurred in connection with the temple festival. The petitioners and others were appointed by the temple as volunteers. There was a clash between two groups and the petitioners and other committee members were trying to avoid the clash. The counsel also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant them bail. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. After hearing both sides, I think this Bail Application can be allowed on stringent conditions. It is true that the allegations against the petitioners are serious. But, custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary for completing the investigation. The petitioners can be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer till final report is filed. 5. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that BAIL APPL. NO. 3340 OF 2022 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 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. Recently the Apex Court in **Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2021(5)KHC 353)** considered the point in detail. The relevant paragraph of the above judgment is extracted hereunder. “12. We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. (Joginder Kumar v. State of BAIL APPL. NO. 3340 OF 2022 6 UP and Others (1994 KHC 189: (1994) 4 SCC 260: 1994 (1) KLT 919: 1994 (2) KLJ 97: AIR 1994 SC 1349: 1994 CriLJ 1981)) If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and selfesteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.” 7. 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. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation. 2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of BAIL APPL. NO. 3340 OF 2022 7 Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned. 3. 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 4. The petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 5. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and BAIL APPL. NO. 3340 OF 2022 8 Fridays at 10 am, till final report is filed. 6. The 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. 7. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional 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 any of the above conditions are violated. Sd/- ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** DM 9 BAIL APPL. NO. 3340 OF 2022 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3340/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO. 339/2022 OF SOORANAD POLICE STATION IN KOLLAM DISTRICT ## //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE