Common Order in Bail Applications Nos. 3290 & 3766 of 2025, High Court of Kerala

**==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29202 ``` # **`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. 3290 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.226/2025 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` MUHSIN AGED 22 YEARS S/O ABDUL RASHEED,VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE , ARATTUPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA-, PIN - 690515 ``` ## **`BY ADV AJITH GEORGE`** ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`SR PP-NOUSHAD K A`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL No. 3766/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` BAIL APPL.NOS. 3290 & 3766/2025 2 ``` ``` 2025:KER:29202 ``` **==> 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. 3766 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.226/2025 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2025 IN BAIL APPL. NO.2480 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:`** ``` 1MUHSINA AGED 20 YEARS W/O ARSHAD VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE , ARATTUPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA-, PIN - 680562 ``` ``` 2ARSHAD AGED 24 YEARS S/O IRSHAD , VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE , ARATTUPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690535 ``` ``` BY ADVS. AJITH GEORGE P.T.THAJMINA ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` BAIL APPL.NOS. 3290 & 3766/2025 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:29202` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`PP-G SUDHEER`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL NO.3290/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` BAIL APPL.NOS. 3290 & 3766/2025 4 ``` ``` 2025:KER:29202 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **---------------------------------------B.A.Nos. 3290 & 3766 of 2025 ------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of April, 2025** ## **COMMON ORDER** These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. These Bail Applications are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these cases by a common order. 2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 226 of 2025 of Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 132 & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'). 3. The prosecution case is that on 02.02.2025, the accused used filthy language and assaulted a police officer, who is the defacto complainant herein. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. ``` BAIL APPL.NOS. 3290 & 3766/2025 5 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:29202` 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the incident is not happened as alleged by the prosecution. Actually, a road traffic accident occurred in which the petitioner in B.A.No.3290/2025 sustained injury. The police officer came there and acted in a negligent manner without taking any proper action. No such incident as alleged is happened is the submission. It is also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. 6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, he 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. It is true that the allegations against the petitioners are very serious. But the maximum punishment that can be imposed for the of ences alleged are below seven years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioners can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. ``` BAIL APPL.NOS. 3290 & 3766/2025 6 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:29202` 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 has7. 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. 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 ``` BAIL APPL.NOS. 3290 & 3766/2025 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:29202` investigation arises when custodial investigation bec7. 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.omes 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.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. (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 ``` BAIL APPL.NOS. 3290 & 3766/2025 8 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:29202` 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 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 ``` BAIL APPL.NOS. 3290 & 3766/2025 9 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:29202` 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 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. ``` BAIL APPL.NOS. 3290 & 3766/2025 10 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:29202` 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. 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 ``` BAIL APPL.NOS. 3290 & 3766/2025 11 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:29202` 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** MSA ``` BAIL APPL.NOS. 3290 & 3766/2025 12 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29202 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3766/2025`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure 1 ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY ORDER IN BAIL APPLN. NO. 2480/2025 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT ``` ``` BAIL APPL.NOS. 3290 & 3766/2025 13 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29202 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3290/2025`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure A1THE TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL RECORDS OF THE PETITIONER ```