MANIKANDAN V.P; SUNIL KUMAR C; MANIKANDAN B; PRIYESH B; ANILKUMAR K.P v. STATE OF KERALA

BAIL APPL. NO. 4540 OF 2025 1 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30558 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947** **BAIL APPL. NO. 4540 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.202/2025 OF Kumbla Police Station, Kasargod** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 MANAKINDAN V.P, (CORRECTED AS MANIKANDAN VP AS PER ORDER DATED 08.04.25 IN CRL.M.A 1/25) AGED 36 YEARS** - **S/O SURENDRAN V.P, VENGARA HOUSE, THADIYANAVALAPPU KOODAM, PULLUR KASARGODE-, PIN - 671531** - **2 SUNIL KUMAR C AGED 45 YEARS S/O CHANDRAN H, MARUTHAMKARA HOUSE, MUNNAD KASARGODE-, PIN - 671541** - **3 MANAKINDAN B (CORRECTED AS MANIKANDAN B AS PER ORDER DATED 08.04.25 IN CRL.M.A 1/25) AGED 34 YEARS** - **S/O KELU MANIYANI , KAKKOTAMMA HOUSE, MUNNAD KASARGODE-, PIN - 671541** - **4 PRIYEH M (CORRECTED AS PRIYESH B AS PER ORDER DATED 08.04.25 IN CRL.M.A 1/25) AGED 36 YEARS** - **S/O KUNJIRAMAN, KAKKOTAMMA HOUSE, MUNNAD KASARGODE, PIN - 671541** - **5 ANILKUMAR K.P, AGED 40 YEARS** - **S/O KELU MANIYANI ,KAKKOTAMMA HOUSE, MUNNAD, KASARGODE-, PIN - 671541** BAIL APPL. NO. 4540 OF 2025 2 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30558 **BY ADVS. P.E.SAJAL AJAS K.S. MUHAMMED HISHAM T.** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR PP-NOUSHAD K A** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **08.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 4540 OF 2025 3 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30558 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **–-------------------------------------** **B.A. No. 4540 of 2025 -------------------------------------Dated this the 8[th] day of April, 2025** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. The petitioners are the accused Nos. 2 to 5 in Crime No. 202/2025 of Kumbala Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sec.3 of the Explosive Substances Act and Secs. 3 r/w 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 06.03.2025 at 23.15 hours, the accused used the explosive substance in a careless manner and caused the death of a dog which was under the control of the defacto complainant. Hence, it is BAIL APPL. NO. 4540 OF 2025 4 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30558 alleged that the accused committed the offences. 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 offences alleged are not attracted. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant them bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor also submitted that the petitioner No.3 is having criminal antecedents of same nature. 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 considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not necessary. The 1[st] accused is already arrested and released on bail. Therefore, the petitioners can be released on bail, after imposing stringent conditions. BAIL APPL. NO. 4540 OF 2025 5 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30558 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 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. BAIL APPL. NO. 4540 OF 2025 6 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30558 (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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4540 OF 2025 7 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30558 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4540 OF 2025 8 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30558 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4540 OF 2025 9 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30558 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 of the above conditions are violated. **Sd/-** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SKS