RadhaKrishnan v. State of Kerala and Sub Inspector of Police, Vengara Police Station

BA No.4286 of 2025 1 ``` 2025:KER:28142 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4286 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.153/2025 OF Vengara Police Station, Malappuram ``` ## **`PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:`** ``` RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 46 YEARS, KOTTEKKATTIL, AMBALAPARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN – 679 512 ``` ## **`BY ADV R.RANJITH (MANJERI)`** ## **`RESPONDENT(S):`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031 2THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VENGARA POLICE STATION, MALAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676 505 ``` ## **`BY ADV.:`** ## **`PP - G SUDHEER`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` BA No.4286 of 2025 2 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [94 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> 2025:KER:28142<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------------------** ## **BA No.4286 of 2025** **-------------------------------------------Dated this the 02[nd] day of April, 2025** ## **O R D E R** This bail application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.153/2025 of Vengara Police Station, Malappuram. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 288 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 4(b) and 5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 08.03.2025 at about 09.45 hours, the accused was BA No.4286 of 2025 3 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28142 ``` found conducting quarrying activities without license. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, no explosive substance is seized by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner was not even present there at the time of search. It is also submitted that simply because the petitioner is the owner of the property, he ought not have been implicated as an accused. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court, if this Court grants him bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted BA No.4286 of 2025 4 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28142 ``` that, as per the report received by him from the Investigating Officer, no criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioner. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is serious. But the fact remains that the petitioner is implicated as an accused because he is the owner of the property. Admittedly, the petitioner was not present at the time of search conducted by the officer concerned. No criminal antecedents is also alleged against the petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, the petitioner can be released on 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. BA No.4286 of 2025 5 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28142 ``` 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. 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 BA No.4286 of 2025 6 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:28142` 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.” ## 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 decisions and considering the facts and BA No.4286 of 2025 7 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28142 ``` circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following conditions: _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-operate with the investigation and_ BA No.4286 of 2025 8 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28142 ``` _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. 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.**_ BA No.4286 of 2025 9 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28142 ``` _**State of Kerala** [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also._ _7. 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 v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another** [2020 (1) KHC 663]._ _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 this bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution_ BA No.4286 of 2025 10 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28142 ``` _is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated._ nvj **Sd/P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE**