Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 467 (KER)

Joseph S/o Paul v. State Of Kerala

2025-03-05

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

body2025
ORDER : (P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.) This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita . 2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.160 of 2025 of Changamanad Police Station, Ernakulam. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 196(b), 351(2), 126(2), 115(2), 121(1) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short 'BNS'), 2023. 3. The prosecution case is that on 21.02.2025 at about 11:35 p.m., the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly stood in front of the police vehicle restraining movement of the vehicle and uttering obsence words against the police officers. It is also alleged that the accused physically assaulted the police officers. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 5. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are not correct. The counsel submitted that there is serious pollution problem. The local panchayat initiated steps to clear the waste. Even though several communications were sent to the police for assistance. The police refused to accept the request of the panchayat. When police came there, there was a general agitation against the police. The allegation that the petitioner attacked the police is not correct. 6. Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that for no reason the police is attacked by the petitioner when they reached the place of occurrence. It is also submitted that there is physical attack also. 7. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, there is some issue regarding the pollution in connection with the conduct of a pig farm. The panchayat already take steps and even panchayat requested the police assistance. According to the petitioners, no police assistance is given. The requests submitted by the panchayat were produced as exhibits. It is also submitted that a writ petition is filed by the panchayat before this Court and there is an interim order as evident by Annexure A3. At the time the police reached there. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think bail can be granted to the petitioners after imposing stringent conditions. 8. 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. At the time the police reached there. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think bail can be granted to the petitioners after imposing stringent conditions. 8. 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. 9. 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 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.” 10. 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. 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 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 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. Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the investigating officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioners even while the petitioners are on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [ 2020 (1) KHC 663 ]. 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.