Muhammed Thanseer v. State of Kerala

**2025:KER:26759** **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947** **BAIL APPL. NO. 3910 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.201/2025 OF Manjeri Police Station, Malappuram** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **MUHAMMED THANSEER AGED 30 YEARS S/O. AZAD PARAKKADAN, THADAPPARAMBU, VALAMANGALAM (P.O), PULPETTA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 676123 BY ADVS. P.SAMSUDIN JASNEED JAMAL LIRA A.B. DEVIKA E.D. ABIN RASHID** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **THE 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 27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2025:KER:26759 B.A.No.3910 of 2025 2 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **==> picture [253 x 6] intentionally omitted <==** ## **B.A. No.3910 of 2025** **-----------------------------** Dated this the 27[th] day of March, 2025 ## **ORDER** This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.201 of 2025 of Manjeri Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 117(3), 118(1) r/w 92 of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016. 3. The prosecution case is that on 05-02-2025 at about 06.00 PM at Thadapparamba, Valamangalam, the car in which the victim was traveling collided with an autorikshaw and the car and the autorikishaw suffered minor damage and the matter was settled amicably. At that point of time, 2025:KER:26759 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## B.A.No.3910 of 2025 3 accused turned up at the spot and insisted on to pay compensation. When the demand was refused, accused/petitioner pulled the victim out of the car and hit with a key and kicked on the disabled leg. It has been further alleged that the accused attacked him knowing that he is a disable person. and thus committed the said offenses 126 (3), 117 (3), 118 (1) and also added Disability Act 92 (a) of BNS 2023. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire allegations against the petitioner is not correct. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions imposed by this Court, if this Court grant him bail. 6. The public prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the public prosecutor submitted 2025:KER:26759 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** B.A.No.3910 of 2025 4 that as per the report received by him, no criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioner. Public Prosecutor submitted that the victim sustained a fracture and the offence under Section 117(3) is also attracted, which is non-bailable offence. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the public prosecutor. It is true that the allegations against the petitioner is very serious. But the incident happened in a spur of moment after a road accident. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner can be granted bail after imposing stringent conditions. 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** 2025:KER:26759 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** B.A.No.3910 of 2025 5 **(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. 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 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 2025:KER:26759 6 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** B.A.No.3910 of 2025 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.” ## 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. 11. 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: **==> picture [312 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:26759 B.A.No.3910 of 2025 7 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 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-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the 2025:KER:26759 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** B.A.No.3910 of 2025 8 facts of the case so as to dissuade himr 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**_ 2025:KER:26759 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** B.A.No.3910 of 2025 9 ## _**v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another**_ [2020 ## (1) KHC 663]. 7. 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** Scl/