Disposed

Ashokan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jul 2022CRL.A/327/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the dismissal of an application for anticipatory bail, the court held that since the investigation was complete and the accused were not arrested during the investigation period, the High Court cannot grant bail. Instead, the appeal was disposed of directing the Special Court to consider the bail application under Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal disposed of directing the Special Court to consider the bail application based on non-arrest during investigation.

Ashokan Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶4

CRL.A NO. 327 OF 2020

¶5

CRIME NO.91/2020 OF Thalassery Police Station, Kannur

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCRMC 306/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY

¶7

APPELLANT/ACCUSED 1 TO 4 AND 6:

¶8

1 ASHOKAN AGED 52 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN, POOKKULANGARA HOUSE, KAVUNKAL P.O. PATTUVAM, PATTUVAM AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA, TALUK, KANNUR. 2 RAMESHAN. M. AGED 59 YEARS S/O. KUNHIRAMAN,MAKKOOTTAN HOUSE, KAVUNKAL P.O. PATTUVAM, PATTUVAM AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA, TALUK, KANNUR. 3 RAJAN.M., S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, MAKKOTTAN HOUSE, KAVUNKAL P.O. PATTUVAM, PATTUVAM AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA, TALUK, KANNUR. 4 RATHEESH M.V. @ RAJESH M.V., AGED 36 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN, MEETHAL VEEDU, KAVUNKAL P.O. PATTUVAM, PATTUVAM AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA, TALUK, KANNUR.

¶9

5 DINESHAN P.P. AGED 45 YEARS S/O. SANKARANA, ASARI VALAVU, PATTUVAM AMSOM , TALIPARAMBA, TALUK, KANNUR. BY ADV NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,

¶12

Crl.Appeal No. 327 of 2020

¶13

ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶14

2 THEKKAN RAMESAN PATTUVAM,MANOOKKARA,KAVUNKAL,TALIPARAMBA,KANNUR. 670141(IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 10/03/2020 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1/2020)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING :

¶16

Crl.Appeal No. 327 of 2020

¶17

-: 3 :-

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This is an appeal submitted by the accused No. 1 to 4 and 6 in Crime No.91/2020 of Taliparamba Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 506(i), 294(b) r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(za), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST Act).

¶20

The prosecution case is that on 30/01/2020 at 7.30 p.m, the accused persons, along with 50 others, formed into an unlawful assembly, committed rioting, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant who belonged to the scheduled caste community, threatened him and uttered obscene words and also insulted him by calling his caste name within public view.

¶21

The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application for anticipatory bail submitted by the appellants as per the order dated 25/02/2020, and this appeal is filed in such circumstances.

¶22

Crl.Appeal No. 327 of 2020

¶23

-: 4 :-

¶24

Heard Sri. Nandagopal S Kurup, the learned counsel

¶25

appearing for the appellants and Sri.V.S.Sreejith, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, submitted that now the investigation, in this case, is already over and a final report has been submitted, and a Special Court has taken cognizance of the offence. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the petitioners have already received the summons and entered appearance through their counsel.

¶27

In such circumstances, in my view, since the appellants have already appeared, it is not necessary to consider this appeal as the same is submitted during the crime stage. The appellants can appear before the Special Court and seek bail. However, an apprehension was voiced by the learned counsel for the appellants that if the appellants appear before the Special Court, they are likely to be remanded to judicial custody and therefore, they seek appropriate orders from this Court.

¶28

However, in my view, the question whether the appellants are to be released on bail is a matter to be considered

¶29

Crl.Appeal No. 327 of 2020

¶30

-: 5 :-

¶31

by the learned Special Judge. The guidelines relating to the release

¶32

of an accused who was not arrested by the Police during the crime stage, when he makes an appearance before the court concerned on receipt of the summons, have been specifically laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aman Preet Singh v C.B.I [2021 (6) KHC 54 (SC)] . Paragraph 11 of the said judgment reads as follows:

¶33

“11. Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170 Cr.P.C., the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this.”

¶34

In such circumstances, it is only proper that this Criminal Appeal is disposed of directing the Special Court to consider the

¶35

Crl.Appeal No. 327 of 2020

¶36

-: 6 :-

¶37

application for bail when it is submitted by the appellants, in the

¶38

light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶39

Sd/-