MANU v. State of Kerala

``` 2025:KER:27695 ``` ``` 1 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4144 OF 2025`** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4144 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.248/2025 OF Thiruvallam Police Station, ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:`** ``` MANU AGED 32 YEARS S/O SADASIVAN, NADUVETTITH, PALAPPOORU, KALLIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695522 ``` ``` BY ADVS. JERRY MATHEW NITHIN S. DEVIKA K.R. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 RATHEESH AGED 44 YEARS`** ``` S/O VISWAMBHARAN, POTTAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PALAPPOOR, CHANNELKARA, VELLAYANI, KALLIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695042 SRI G SUDHEER, PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4144 OF 2025 ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:27695 ``` **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------B.A.No.4144 of 2025 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 01[st] day of April, 2025** ## **ORDER** This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioner is the 1[st] accused in Crime No.248/2025 of Thiruvallam Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 110, 140(4), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, BNS). 3. The prosecution case is that, accused Nos. 1 to 4, on 06.03.2025 at about 1:30 PM, with an intention to kidnap and cause grievous harm to the defacto complainant, arrived at his residence in a car driven by the 4[th] accused and persuaded him to enter the vehicle under the pretense of some work. They then proceeded to the Malayinkeezhu Beverage outlet, purchased alcohol, and continued traveling until they reached a ``` 2025:KER:27695 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4144 OF 2025`** rubber plantation. There, accused Nos.2 and 3 joined them, consumed alcohol, and later proceeded to Vishnu’s house. Upon arrival, accused Nos.2 and 3 restrained the defacto complainant by holding him by the neck. The 1[st] accused attacked him using a chopper and a hammer. It is alleged that the other accused also assault him. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is not correct. The counsel submitted that now the entire dispute is settled with the injured in this case and Annexure-2 affidavit is filed by the injured. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that there is criminal antecedent to the petitioner. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. But the victim filed an affidavit before this Court stating that he has no objection in granting bail to the petitioner. Considering the ``` 2025:KER:27695 ``` ``` 4 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4144 OF 2025`** facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner 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 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 ``` 2025:KER:27695 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4144 OF 2025 ``` ``` 5 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:27695` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4144 OF 2025`** ## **`6`** decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think bail can be granted after imposing stringent conditions. Therefore, 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 co- ``` 2025:KER:27695 ``` ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4144 OF 2025`** 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. 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 ``` 2025:KER:27695 ``` ``` 8 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4144 OF 2025`** ## **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 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** JV