Kerala High Court
Abhinand Ajayan vs State Of Kerala on 20 December, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2024:KER:97029
BAIL APPL. NO. 10874 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA,
1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 10874 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1884/2024 OF Vaikom Police Station, Kottayam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6:
ABHINAND AJAYAN
AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.AJAYAGHOSH,
PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, VAIKAPRAYAR P.O,
VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.,
PIN - 686146
BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI.,
PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT SREEJA V SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.12.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:97029
BAIL APPL. NO. 10874 OF 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A. No.10874 of 2024
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of December, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1884/2024 of Vaikkom Police Station, Kottayam. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 189(1), 189(2), 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 123, 324 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short BNS).
3. The prosecution case is that, on 22.11.2024, at about 11:50 pm, the accused persons colluded together and assaulted the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant was unlawfully obstructed by the accused persons on the road in front of the Indian Coffee House near the Vaikkom Post Office. The 1st accused hit on the head with a wired rod. The 2nd accused with a sugarcane stick hit on his back of the head and chest. The other accused person also assaulted the defacto 2024:KER:97029 BAIL APPL. NO. 10874 OF 2024 3 complainant. The 5th accused used pepper spray, which he was holding against the defacto complainant. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only non bailable offences alleged are under Sections 118(1) and 123 of BNS. According to the petitioner, even if the entire allegations are accepted, Section 123 of BNS is not attracted. It is also submitted that, only minor injury sustained to the victim. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the offences alleged are grave in nature.
6. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the offence under Section 123 of BNS is attracted or not is a question to be investigated. I do not want to make any observation about the same. As far as Section 118(1) of BNS is 2024:KER:97029 BAIL APPL. NO. 10874 OF 2024 4 concerned, there is no serious injury. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent condition.
7. 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.
8. 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 2024:KER:97029 BAIL APPL. NO. 10874 OF 2024 5 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 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."
9. 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.
2024:KER:97029 BAIL APPL. NO. 10874 OF 2024 6
10. 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 petitioner 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 petitioner, he 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 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 2024:KER:97029 BAIL APPL. NO. 10874 OF 2024 7 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. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. 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.
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 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
JV JUDGE