Kerala High Court
Ramaraj.P vs State Of Kerala on 13 December, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2024:KER:94894
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 5732 OF 2024
CRIME NO.255/2024 OF DEVIKULAM POLICE STATION, IDUKKI
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:
1 RAMARAJ.P,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.PARAMADEVAR, CHEMMALAR VEEDU, KOVILOOR,
VATTAVADA,IDUKKI, PIN - 685615
2 MUHAMMED ASHIQ.U.A,
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN MAULAVI, ULLADATH MUBARAK MANZIL
HOUSE,EDATHALA KARA, EDATHALA.P.O.,ALUVA EAST
VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686531
3 KUMAR.P,
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O.PONNUSAMI MARACHIRETTIYAR, 143,
THIRUMALAIRETPATTI, KUNNAGOUNDANPATTI, GUDALUR,
TAMIL NADU, PIN - 639120
BY ADVS.
SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
BREJITHA UNNIKRISHNAN
SUDEESH K.E.
2024:KER:94894
BAIL APPL. NO.5732 OF 2024
2
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 ASWATHI RAJ ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED )
W/O.AJEESH DAMODARAN, GEETHALAYAM, KAKKATHODU,
VAZHAPPALLY.P.O, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM ( SOUGHT
TO BE IMPLEADED )
BY ADVS.
SANIL JOSE
BONNY BENNY(K/000234/2017)
K.P.ANTONY BINU(K/103/2014)
P.G.SUDHEESH(K/000470/2000)
AMALJITH(K/001274/2024)
RENJITH GEORGE, SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.12.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:94894
BAIL APPL. NO.5732 OF 2024
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.5732 of 2024
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of December, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.255/2024 of Devikulam Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 427, 354, 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that due to previous enmity of 1st and 2nd accused towards the uncle of the defacto complainant, on 26.05.2024, the 1st accused took a stone and 2nd accused using a stick hit the defacto complainant and defacto complainant sustained serious injuries. It is also 2024:KER:94894 BAIL APPL. NO.5732 OF 2024 4 alleged that defacto complainant lost her mobile phone and gold earring.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. I also heard the counsel appearing for the defacto complainant.
5. It is true that the allegations against the petitioners are serious. According to the petitioners, Annexure-3 is a counter case. The Public Prosecutor submitted that some civil dispute is pending between the parties which leads to the incident. It is also submitted that there is no serious injury sustained to the victim. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think petitioners can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.
6. 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 2024:KER:94894 BAIL APPL. NO.5732 OF 2024 5 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.
7. 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 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 2024:KER:94894 BAIL APPL. NO.5732 OF 2024 6 reputation and self-esteem 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."
8. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2023 KHC 6961], the Apex Court observed that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case.
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.
2024:KER:94894 BAIL APPL. NO.5732 OF 2024 7
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 Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
2024:KER:94894 BAIL APPL. NO.5732 OF 2024 8
4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. 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.
6. 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 SSG 2024:KER:94894 BAIL APPL. NO.5732 OF 2024 9 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 5732/2024 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure- 1 A TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.255/2024 OF DEVICULAM POLICE STATION, IDUKKI Annexure- 2 A TRUE COPY OF FIS IN CRIME NO.255/2024 OF DEVICULAM POLICE STATION, IDUKKI Annexure- 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.254/2024 OF DEVICULAM POLICE STATION, IDUKKI Annexure- 4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIS IN CRIME NO.254/2024 OF DEVICULAM POLICE STATION, IDUKKI Annexure- 5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO.287/2023 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, DEVICULAM Annexure- 6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.11.23 IN IA 1/23 IN OS 287/23 BY THE MUNSIFF COURT DEVIKULAM Annexure-7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED 04.12.2023 ISSUED FROM DEVICULAM POLICE STATION Annexure- 8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED 18.12.2023 ISSUED FROM DYSP, MUNNAR Annexure- 9 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 21.12.2023 IN WP NO.43357/2023 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT