Bail Applications — Robinson S. vs State of Kerala; Ajith Robinson vs State of Kerala

BAIL APPL. Nos.2891 & 2884 OF 2025 1 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29420 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947** **BAIL APPL. NO. 2891 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.247/2025 OF Vizhinjam Police Station,** ## **Thiruvananthapuram** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **ROBINSON S. AGED 60 YEARS S/O SATHYANEASN H, JESUS BHAVAN, VAVAMOOLA VADAKKEKARA, VENNIYUR, NELLIVILA P.O., VENGANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695523** ## **BY ADV M.R.SASITH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** **2 NEETHU M.A AGED 28 YEARS** **D/O. G MANOHARAN, RESIDING AT KUZHIVILLA PUTHEN VEEDU, ARUMANOORKADA, TIRUPURAM P.O., NEYYATINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695525 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 12/03/2025 IN CRL.M.A.1/2025.** **BY ADVS.** BAIL APPL. Nos.2891 & 2884 OF 2025 2 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29420 # **SAYUJYA RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.RAJEEV KRISHNAN** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR PP-HRITHWIK C S,PP-G SUDHEER** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2884/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. Nos.2891 & 2884 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:29420 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947** **BAIL APPL. NO. 2884 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.247/2025 OF Vizhinjam Police Station,** ## **Thiruvananthapuram** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **AJITH ROBINSON AGED 31 YEARS S/O ROBINSON, CHARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, NELLIVILA P.O., VAVAMOOLA, VADAKKEKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695523** **BY ADV M.R.SASITH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 NEETHU M.A ( IMPLEADED AS R2) VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ( IMPLEADED AS R2), PIN - 695521** **BY ADVS. SAYUJYA RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.RAJEEV KRISHNAN** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2891/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. Nos.2891 & 2884 OF 2025 4 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29420 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **–-------------------------------------** **B.A. Nos. 2884 & 2891 of 2025 -------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of April, 2025** ## **O R D E R** These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. These bail applications are connected and therefore, I am disposing these bail applications by a common order. 2. The petitioners are accused in Crime No. 247/2025 of Vizhinjam Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sec.75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short 'JJ Act') and Sec. 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'DV Act'). 3. The prosecution case is that, the accused BAIL APPL. Nos.2891 & 2884 OF 2025 5 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29420 persons with an intention to cause mental agony to the defacto complainant and her children and to leave them, the accused persons locked the door of the house and denied dress and other things to them. It is also alleged that the accused violated the orders passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara in MC No. 19/2024. 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, the allegations are in connection with a matrimonial dispute. The counsel submitted that the maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offences alleged is only upto 3 years. The counsel submitted that no such incident happened as alleged in the complaint. It is also submitted that the alleged incident happened on 07.02.2025. The FIR is registered on 08.02.2025 stating that there is violation of interim order passed by the Magistrate Court. Subsequently, on 10.02.2025, the case BAIL APPL. Nos.2891 & 2884 OF 2025 6 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29420 pending before the Magistrate Court is withdrawn. Therefore, as on today, there is no interim order in force. The counsel appearing for the defacto complainant seriously opposed the bail application. The counsel submitted that even if the main MC is withdrawn subsequently, as on the date on which the alleged incident happened, the interim order was in force. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have not committed any offence. The counsel submitted that it is a clear case in which the petitioners committed the alleged offence. The defacto complainant is the wife. The defacto complainant and her minor children suffered a lot from the petitioners. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioners are serious. But the fact remains that the maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offences alleged is only upto 3 years. The counsel appearing for the defacto complainant submitted that if there is threat to the life of the victim, the punishment can go upto BAIL APPL. Nos.2891 & 2884 OF 2025 7 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29420 10 years. But, again the fact remains that this is a matrimonial dispute between the parties. The cases are pending before the Family Court and before the Magistrate Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not necessary. Therefore, the petitioners can be released 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 BAIL APPL. Nos.2891 & 2884 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:29420 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## 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 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 rule that bail should be denied in every case. 10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above BAIL APPL. Nos.2891 & 2884 OF 2025 9 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29420 decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, these Bail Applications are 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) 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 BAIL APPL. Nos.2891 & 2884 OF 2025 10 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29420 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/her 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 BAIL APPL. Nos.2891 & 2884 OF 2025 11 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29420 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. 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 BAIL APPL. Nos.2891 & 2884 OF 2025 12 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29420 of the above conditions are violated. **Sd/P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SKS