BAIL APPLICATION No. 4050 of 2025 (Adithya Krishnan v. State of Kerala & Another)

B.A.No.4050 of 2025 1 2025:KER:29854 **==> 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. 4050 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.4/2025 OF RANNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2:** **ADITHYA KRISHNAN AGED 28 YEARS S/O PRASAD KUMAR, MANNIL PUTHENVEEDU, V KOTTAYAM, KONNY, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689691** **BY ADVS. M.KIRANLAL R.RAJESH (VARKALA) MANU RAMACHANDRAN T.S.SARATH SAMEER M NAIR SAILAKSHMI MENON AASHI K. SHAJAN MINZA FATHIMA SALIM M. BINITHA MARIA THOMAS KEZIL THOTTUKADAVIL CHERIAN DHILNA NAZRIN** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031** B.A.No.4050 of 2025 2 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29854 **2 SHINU K.S. S/O SIVANKUTTY KP, KALLUPARAMBIL VEEDU, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689672** **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.4050 of 2025 3 2025:KER:29854 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A.No.4050 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. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.4/2025 of Ranni Police Station, Pathanamthitta. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 316 & 318 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'). 3. The prosecution case is that the de-facto complainant was hired by the 1[st] accused as a driver. It is submitted that the de-facto complainant's Bolero vehicle was rented to a company named E.K.Κ Perumbavur. It is alleged that, from January 2024 onwards the 1[st] accused, with the assistance of the 2[nd] accused, further rented the said vehicle to the 3[rd] accused without the consent of the de-facto complainant and failed to B.A.No.4050 of 2025 4 2025:KER:29854 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** return the vehicle despite repeated demands, thereby the defacto complainant sustained a loss of Rs. 8,40,000/-. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said offences. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. When this bail application came up for consideration before this Court on 01.04.2025, this Court passed the following order: “The petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer in Crime No.04/2025 of Ranni Police Station on 04.04.2025. The Investigating Officer can interrogate the petitioner and after interrogation, Investigating Officer will submit a report before this Court as to whether further custodial interrogation is necessary. The petitioner shall not be arrested till the next posting date. Post on 07.04.2025. Issue a copy of this Order to the Public Prosecutor who will communicate the same to the Investigating Officer.” 6. Today, when the matter came up for consideration, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner already surrendered before the Investigating Officer and his B.A.No.4050 of 2025 5 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29854 statement is recorded. If that be the case, further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. There can be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer once again to complete the procedures. After interrogation, if the arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to release the petitioner on bail after imposing stringent conditions. 7. 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. 8. 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 B.A.No.4050 of 2025 6 2025:KER:29854 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 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.” 9. 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 B.A.No.4050 of 2025 7 2025:KER:29854 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** rule that bail should be denied in every case. 10. 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 petitioner 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 petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned. 3. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not, B.A.No.4050 of 2025 8 2025:KER:29854 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 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. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is 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 petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another**_ [2020 (1) B.A.No.4050 of 2025 9 2025:KER:29854 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 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 petitioner, 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** DM