Bail Appl. No.3951 of 2025

``` 2025:KER:27028 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`Bail Appl. No.3951 OF 2025`** # **`1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3951 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.529/2025 OF Karunagapally Police Station, Kollam ``` ## **`PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.3 & 5:`** - **`1 MOHANDAS`** ``` AGED 48 YEARS, S/O SADANANDAN, MANAYIL PADEETTATHIL KOTTAKKUPURAM,CLAPPANA P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN – 690 525 ``` ``` 2ASHOKAN AGED 57 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAN KUTTY ASHA BHAVANAM,KOTTACKUPURAM,KULASEKHARAPURAM, CLAPPANA,KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN – 690 525 ``` ``` BY ADVS. JISON JOY NANMA.B.B ``` ## **`RESPONDENT( S )/STATE:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031 ``` ## **`BY ADV.:`** ## **`SR PP - HRITHWIK C S`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:27028 ``` ``` Bail Appl. No.3951 OF 2025 ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------B.A. No.3951 of 2025 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 27[th] day of March, 2025** ## **ORDER** This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. 2. Petitioners are accused Nos.3 and 5 in Crime No.529/2025 of Karunagapally Police Station, Kollam. The above crime is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, BNS), 2023. 3. The prosecution case is that accused No.1 to 7 restrained the defacto complainant with an intention to prevent him from moving, in view of the enmity on account of a quarrel between the grandson of the defacto complainant on 22.02.2025 at about 10.00 PM and the 2[nd] accused kicked him and the other accused kicked and beaten him and he sustained ``` 2025:KER:27028 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`Bail Appl. No.3951 OF 2025`** injury. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that, even if the entire allegations are accepted, serious overt act is to the 1[st] accused. The allegation against the petitioners is that they kicked the victim. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant them bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that, as per the report received by him from the Investigating Officer, no criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioners. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly the petitioners are accused Nos.3 and 5. No serious overt act is attributed to the petitioners. The only non-bailable offence alleged are under Section 118(1) of BNS. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioners can be granted bail after imposing stringent conditions. 8. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:27028` ## **`Bail Appl. No.3951 OF 2025`** ``` 4 ``` 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 ``` 5 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:27028` ## **`Bail Appl. No.3951 OF 2025`** 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. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:27028` ## **`Bail Appl. No.3951 OF 2025`** **`6`** 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 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 ``` 2025:KER:27028 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`Bail Appl. No.3951 OF 2025`** ``` 7 ``` 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. 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. ``` 2025:KER:27028 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`Bail Appl. No.3951 OF 2025`** ## **`8`** 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. nvj Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE**