Kerala High Court
P.V Linesh vs State Of Kerala on 6 September, 2024
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2024:KER:67923
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 15TH BHADRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 5477 OF 2024
CRIME NO.440/2024 OF MATTANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR
ORDER DATED 19.06.2024 IN CRMC NO.1053 OF 2024 OF
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:
P.V LINESH,
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O BALAN, THENAMBATH HOUSE,MATTANNUR, MATTANNUR
P.O, KANNUR, PIN - 670 703
BY ADVS.
P.V.ANOOP
PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP
ABIN BENNY
ANJU R S.
K C MOHAMED RASHID
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682 031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
MATTANNUR POLICE STATION, MATTANNUR ROAD,
CHANDRALAYAM, KANNUR, PIN - 670 702
2024:KER:67923
BAIL APPL.NO.5477 OF 2024
2
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SMT PUSHPALATHA M K
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:67923
BAIL APPL.NO.5477 OF 2024
3
C.S.DIAS, J
======================
BA No.5477 of 2024
======================
Dated this the 06th day of September, 2024
ORDER
The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short 'code') for an order of pre-arrest bail.
2. The petitioner is the third accused in Crime No.440/2024, Mattannur Police Station, Kannur, which is registered against the three accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 332 353, 427 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of PDPP Act.
3. The prosecution allegation, in brief, on 05.06.2024, at 20:45 hours, while the defacto complainant (the Sub Inspector of Police, Mattannur) and party were 2024:KER:67923 BAIL APPL.NO.5477 OF 2024 4 conducting patrolling duty, when they reached in front of a school, they found a car bearing registration No.KL-58P-1500 parked in a suspicious circumstances. When the defacto complainant went to question the persons in the car, the three persons in the car assaulted the defacto complainant and his party and caused hurt to them. They also caused damage to the department vehicle. Accordingly, they obstructed the defato complainant and party from discharging their official duties. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.
4. Heard; Sri.P.V.Anoop, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Pushpalatha.M.K, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. There is no materials to substantiate that the petitioner has committed the above offences. The very fact that the incident occurred on 2024:KER:67923 BAIL APPL.NO.5477 OF 2024 5 05.06.2024 at 20:45 hours and Annexure A FIR was registered only on 06.06.2024 at 2:22 hours, proves the falsity and frivolity in the present crime. The petitioner is a law abiding citizen without any criminal antecedents. In fact, the petitioner is working in Kannur Airport as a ground staff. 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. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, inter alia, contending that the accused 1 to 3 and in furtherance of their common intention had assaulted the defacto complainant and the other Civil Police Officials and all of them suffered injuries. The learned Public Prosecutor made available the Accident Registered cum Wound certificate of the three injured dated 05.06.2024 issued by the Government Taluk Hospital, Kuthuparamaba, to substantiate his contention that all three Police Officers 2024:KER:67923 BAIL APPL.NO.5477 OF 2024 6 suffered simple injuries. According to him, the said injuries are more than sufficient to attract the offences under Sections 332 and 353 of the IPC. The petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary and recovery is to be effected for the proper and full investigation of the crime. If the petitioner is granted a pre-arrest bail it would certainly sabotage the investigation and also send a wrong message to the society. Hence, the application may be dismissed.
7. The prosecution allegation is that, on 05.06.2024, the accused restrained the defacto complainant and two other Police Officials and assaulted them and obstructed them from discharging their official duties. The said allegation prima facie stands corroborated by the treatment records referred to above. Whether or not the petitioner had an active role in the crime is a matter to be investigated and ultimately decided at the time of trial.
8. In Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar [2024 KHC OnLine 6137] the Honourable Supreme Court, 2024:KER:67923 BAIL APPL.NO.5477 OF 2024 7 after referring to all the earlier decisions on the point, has observed in the following lines:
"8. It is thus obvious from the catena of decisions dealing with bail that even while clarifying that arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to cases where arrest is imperative in the facts and circumstances of a case, the consistent view is that the grant of anticipatory bail shall be restricted to exceptional circumstances. In other words, the position is that the power to grant anticipatory bail under S.438, CrPC is an exceptional power and should be exercised only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of course. Its object is to ensure that a person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant. (See the decision of this Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. v. J.J.Mannan & Anr., 2010 (1) SCC 679).
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
24. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to 2024:KER:67923 BAIL APPL.NO.5477 OF 2024 8 exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass an interim protection pending consideration of such application as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. xxx xxx xxx".
9. 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 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.
2024:KER:67923 BAIL APPL.NO.5477 OF 2024 9 On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially on considering the nature, gravity and seriousness of accusations levelled against the petitioner and the prima facie materials that substantiate the petitioner's involvement in the crime, that the petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary and recovery is to be effected, I am not satisfied the petitioner's has made out any valid ground to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner's application for a similar relief has been dismissed by the Court of Session as per Annexure B order. The application is meritless and is only to be dismissed. Hence, the application is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE SSG 2024:KER:67923 BAIL APPL.NO.5477 OF 2024 10 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 5477/2024 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 06.06.2024 IN CRIME NO. 440/2024 OF MATTANNUR POLICE STATION IN KANNUR DISTRICT Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MC NO.1053/2024 OF HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY DATED 19.06.2024