Akhil Krishnan Ag and Others v. State of Kerala

``` 2025:KER:27698 ``` ``` 1 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4108 OF 2025`** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4108 OF 2025`** ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:`** - **`1 AKHIL KRISHNAN AGED 34 YEARS`** - **`S/O. M.R RADHAKRISHNAN, KAILASAM, NEAR ST. MARY’S CHURCH, CHALLAPALLY, NAD P.O, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK ALUVA, PIN - 683563`** - **`2 M.R RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 62 YEARS`** ``` KAILASAM, NEAR ST. MARY’S CHURCH ,CHALLAPALLY, NAD P.O, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK ALUVA,, PIN - 683563 ``` ## **`3 REMA`** ``` AGED 58 YEARS ``` ``` W/O.M.R RADHAKRISHNAN KAILASAM, NEAR ST. MARY’S CHURCH ,CHALLAPALLY, NAD P.O, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK ALUVA, PIN - 683563 ``` ``` BY ADVS. T.M.RAMAN KARTHA SYAMA MOHAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031`** ``` 2025:KER:27698 ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4108 OF 2025`** - **`2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER NILAMBUR POLICE STATION, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 679329`** ``` 3AMRUTHA K.R. AGED 29 YEARS, (DE FACTO COMPLAINANT) D/O. RAJESH K.R, KANAKKAMEPPURATH HOUSE KOOTTAPPADI, PALLIKUTH P.O MALAPPURAM,, PIN - 679334 ``` ``` SRI NOUSHAD KA, SR PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:27698 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4108 OF 2025 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------B.A.No.4108 of 2025 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 01[st] day of April, 2025** ## **ORDER** This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.263/2025 of Edakkara Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 85, 316(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, BNS). 3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioners mentally and physically harassed the defacto complainant, who is the wife of the 1[st] petitioner. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 5. Admittedly the offences alleged against the petitioners are matrimonial in nature. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the marital relationship between the ``` 2025:KER:27698 ``` ``` 4 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4108 OF 2025`** 1[st] petitioner and the defacto complainant is in existence. In such circumstances, if this Court reject this bail application, chances for reconciliation will be blurred. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioners can be released on bail. 6. 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. 7. 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 ``` 2025:KER:27698 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4108 OF 2025 ``` ``` 5 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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.” 8. In **Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2023 KHC 6961]** , the Apex Court observed ``` 2025:KER:27698 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4108 OF 2025 ``` ``` 6 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case. 9. 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) each 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 ``` 2025:KER:27698 ``` ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4108 OF 2025`** 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 ``` 2025:KER:27698 ``` ``` 8 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4108 OF 2025`** laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. 7. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by this Court in **Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala** [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also. 8. 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. sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** JV