Muzammil M and others v. State of Kerala

``` 2025:KER:27701 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 3622 OF 2025`** ``` 1 ``` ## **`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. 3622 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.214/2025 OF Alappuzha South Police Station ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.03.2025 IN CRMC NO.245 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA ``` ``` PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1,3 & 4: ``` ``` 1MUZAMMIL M AGED 22 YEARS M.NOOH KANNU, RAHUMATH MANZIL, EAST OF RAILWAY STATION, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001 2ASARUDHEEN SHAH AGED 21 YEARS S/O NISAR, ALIYAR VAKA PURAYIDOM, CIVIL STATION WARD, PIN - 688001 ``` - **`3 MUBIN NAJEEB AGED 21 YEARS S/O NAJEEB, YAFI PURAYIDOM, ZAKARIYA WARD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001`** ``` BY ADVS. M.T.SAMEER JERRY MATHEW DEVIKA K.R. ``` ``` 2025:KER:27701 ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 3622 OF 2025`** ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` SRI CS HRITHWIK, SR PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:27701 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 3622 OF 2025`** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------B.A.No.3622 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. Petitioners are accused Nos.1, 3 7 & 4 in Crime No.214/2025 of Alappuzha South Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 126(2) and section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, BNS). 3. The prosecution case is that due to animosity of the 1[st] petitioner against the defacto complainant, who questioned him for uttering abusive words, the accused persons later on 11.02.205 at about 9.00 pm, in furtherance of their common intention to cause bodily injury to the defacto ``` 2025:KER:27701 ``` ``` 4 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 3622 OF 2025`** complainant, they gathered in an unoccupied plot on the southern side of rubber factory junction, Alappuzha. From there the 1[st] petitioner beat on the right forehead of the defacto complainant with his helmet. The 2[nd] accused hit on the back side of his head with a granite stone. The 2[nd] petitioner wrongfully restrained him by holding his hands behind to give opportunity to other accused to continue assault. The 3[rd] petitioner beat and hit on his head and right cheek, causing pain. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the incident is not happened as alleged by the prosecution. The 1[st] petitioner also sustained injury. The counsel takes me through Annexure-2 medical records to show that the 1[st] petitioner also injury at the same place at the same time. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the ``` 2025:KER:27701 ``` ``` 5 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 3622 OF 2025`** allegation against the petitioners are serious. But, according to the petitioners, the incident is not happened as alleged by the prosecution. There are two versions about the same incident. Which version is correct cannot be decided in a bail application. The only non-bailable offence alleged is under Section 118(1) of BNS. The maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offence alleged is three years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think bail can be granted to the petitioners 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 ``` 2025:KER:27701 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3622 OF 2025 ``` ``` 6 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] 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 ``` 2025:KER:27701 ``` ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 3622 OF 2025`** 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 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) each with two solvent **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:27701` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 3622 OF 2025`** ## **`8`** 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. 6. Needless to mention, it would be well ``` 2025:KER:27701 ``` ``` 9 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 3622 OF 2025`** 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 granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are ``` 2025:KER:27701 ``` ``` 10 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 3622 OF 2025`** at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court to cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated. JV sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE**