Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 1083
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
MINADEESHA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. 10711/2024
ADV. JOSEPH RONY JOSE, ADV.SRI.RENJITH GEORGE-SR.PP
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; arrest must be justified and not routine.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 482 - Bail Application - Accused charged with forgery of vehicle registration document - Petitioners claim ownership and assert no forgery occurred - Bail granted with stringent conditions imposed. (Paras 1-11)
(B) Bail Principles - Bail is the rule, jail is the exception - Arrest should not be routine; necessity must be established. (Paras 8-9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners are accused of forging a vehicle registration document. The second petitioner claims ownership of the motorcycle and asserts it was stolen, leading to a complaint that was later withdrawn. (Paras 2-5)
Findings of Court:
The court finds that custodial interrogation is not necessary and grants bail with conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation. (Paras 7-11)
Issues: The main issues include the necessity of arrest and the conditions under which bail should be granted. (Paras 8-9)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes that personal liberty is paramount and that arrest should not be routine; it must be justified based on the circumstances of the case. (Paras 8-9)
Result: Bail application allowed with conditions.
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita .
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.982 of 2024 of Thrikkakara Police Station, Ernakulam. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 465 & 468 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused forged the registration document of Harley-Davidson Motor Cycle, bearing registration No.KL-67-B-8786. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. According to the petitioners, the 2nd petitioner is the registered owner of Harley-Davidson Motor Cycle bearing registration No.KL-67-B-8786. The said bike was purchased from one Irshad. The bike was registered on 11.05.2023 from the R.T office. The said bike belongs to the 2nd petitioner was taken for use by Irshad and it was not returned to 2nd petitioner is the submission. On enquiry, Irshad said that the vehicle was stolen while it was parking in front of a shop. So Irshad insisted for filing a complaint. Hence a complaint was lodged by the 2nd petitioner before the Station House Officer, Elamakkara Police Station stating that the said bike was stolen. However the 2nd petitioner later came to know that the said bike is remaining in the service station of Harley Davidson, Maradu. Hence, the 2nd petitioner withdrawn the said complaint is the submission. The 2nd petitioner met the Manager of Harley Davidson, Maradu and requested to return the vehicle to him. However the Manager informed the 2nd petitioner that the vehicle can only be handed over to the person who brought bike to the Service Station. The 2nd petitioner approached the Station House Officer, Elamakkara Police Station by preferring a complaint. At that time, the Station House Officer, Elamakkara Police Station insisted the 2nd petitioner to produce the documents pertaining to the said bike. It is also submitted that the petitioners have not forged the document as alleged.
6. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application.
7. After hearing both sides, I think the petitioners can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary. The prosecution can prove the case through oral and documentary evidences. The petitioners can be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer and if the arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to release the petitioners on bail.
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 pers
