Arun R, Shabu Sasi and Prem S v. State of Kerala; The Station House Officer, Sasthancotta Police Station, Kollam

B.A.No.4417 of 2025 1 2025:KER:29771 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947** **BAIL APPL. NO. 4417 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.337/2025 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** - **1 ARUN R AGED 39 YEARS S/O.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, PEROOR VADAKKATHIL VEEDU, KUNNATHUR NADUVIL, KUNNATHUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 690540** **2 SHABU SASI AGED 42 YEARS S/O.SASI, SHABU BHAVAN, KUNNATHUR EAST P.O., KUNNATHUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 690540** **3 PREM S AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN NAIR, VALLASSERIL PUTHEN VEEDU, KUNNATHUR EAST P.O., KUNNATHUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 690540** **BY ADVS. B.MOHANLAL P.S.PREETHA ASWIN V. NAIR KARTHIK J SEKHAR ABIJITH M. AVANI NAIR JAYAPRABHA ARJUN PRAVEENA T.** B.A.No.4417 of 2025 2 2025:KER:29771 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** - **2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** - **BY ADV. SR PP – SRI. NOUSHAD K A** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** - **07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.4417 of 2025 3 2025:KER:29771 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A.No.4417 of 2025 ------------------------------Dated this the 07[th] day of April, 2025 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.337/2025 of Sasthancottah Police Station, Kollam. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 182(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 333, 296(b), 35, 1(2) & 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'). 3. The prosecution case is that the accused, with an intention to cause bodily harm to the Defacto complainant and others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the house of the Defacto complainant on 17/02/2025 at 1:35 am. It is alleged that the 1st accused threatened the father of the Defacto complainant with a sword B.A.No.4417 of 2025 4 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29771 and assaulted him on his chest and shouted obscene words. It is also alleged that the accused caused damages to the tune of Rs.10,000/- in the house. 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. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are accused Nos.3 to 5. Even in the First Information Statement, their name is not mentioned. The counsel submitted that, no specific overt act is attributed to the petitioners. The main overt act is attributed to accused Nos. 1 and 2. They were already arrested. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. The main allegation is against the 1[st] accused. He was already arrested. The name of the petitioners is not mentioned in the First Information Statement also. No criminal antecedents are alleged against the B.A.No.4417 of 2025 5 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29771 petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. But, there is an allegation that the petitioners trespassed into the house and committed mischief to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. In the light of the principle laid down by this Court in **Davis P. R. v. State of Kerala** [2025 (2) KHC 6], there can be a direction to deposit the damaged amount as a condition for bail subject to the final decision in the investigation and trial, if any. Therefore, there can be a direction to the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.3,000/- each before the jurisdictional court. With that condition, bail can be granted. 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. B.A.No.4417 of 2025 6 2025:KER:29771 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## 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 selfesteem 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 B.A.No.4417 of 2025 7 2025:KER:29771 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case. 11. 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 and when required. The B.A.No.4417 of 2025 8 2025:KER:29771 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 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 them 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. Petitioners shall deposit an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) each before the jurisdictional court and produce the receipt before the Investigating Officer at the time of surrender. The amount B.A.No.4417 of 2025 9 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29771 deposited will be subject to the final decision in the investigation and trial, if any. 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. 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]. 9. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the B.A.No.4417 of 2025 10 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29771 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** DM