High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2025-04-08Bail granted to the petitioners with stringent ...

Reshmi, Abhin and Sunila v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BA No.4290 of 2025

Neutral Citation:2025:KER:30607

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2025-04-08
Court Decision / Holding: The Bail Application is allowed. The petitioners are granted bail with stringent conditions: (1) They shall appear before the investigating officer within two weeks from today and undergo interrogation; (2) If the IO proposes to arrest, they shall be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties; (3) They shall appear before the IO as required; (4) They shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court; (5) They shall not commit any offence similar to the one they are accused of; (6) Investigations may proceed, including recoveries, even while on bail; (7) The order notes that the decision is confined to deciding this bail application and that non-compliance can lead to cancellation of bail by the jurisdictional Court.
Final Disposition: Bail granted to the petitioners with stringent conditions; bail is allowed under specified terms and the court retains power to cancel bail if conditions are violated.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Reshmi, aged 38 years; Abhin, aged 17 years; Sunila, aged 26 years

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
The Station House Officer Paravur Police Station, Paravur P.O, Kollam District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sanoj M.A.

Counsels for Respondents

• Keerthi Vijayan
• Feba Mary Thomas
• Anand Remesh
• Noushad K A, Sr.PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court bail application (BA. No. 4290 of 2025) filed by three accused in Crime No. 457/2025 of Paravoor Police Station, Kollam, under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 329(3), 126(2), 118(1), 118(2), 303(2) and 3(5)). The petitioners—Reshmi, Abhin, and Sunila—contend that the allegations, though grave, do not justify preventive detention, and the petitioners should be granted bail with stringent conditions in light of the presumption of innocence and the necessity to secure a fair trial. The first petitioner is a woman who cohabited with the de facto complainant for seven years, with a child reportedly in the relationship; the second petitioner is 17 years old; the third petitioner is a friend of the first petitioner. The prosecution alleges trespass, tying the complainant’s legs, pouring on the eyes, and causing grievous injuries after an altercation linked to alleged enmity. Counsel for petitioners and for the Public Prosecutor and the de facto complainant argued on the balance of individual liberty and public interest, citing precedents that bail is the norm and arrest is the exception, subject to jurisdictional safeguards. The judge relies on Supreme Court authorities to endorse bail with conditions, including appearance before the IO, non-evading bonds, no leave without permission, and no further offences. The order grants bail with stringent conditions and retains power to cancel if violated, emphasizing personal liberty and the presumption of innocence while balancing public interest and ongoing investigation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha SanhitaSections 329(3), 126(2), 118(1), 118(2), 303(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
Personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that while the offences alleged are grave, bail should not be denied automatically. They emphasize the relationship with the de facto complainant, the absence of witnesses or direct threats to interfere with the investigation, and the need to safeguard the accused’s right to a fair trial. They rely on the principle that bail is the rule and emphasize that a strict, purposive set of conditions can mitigate concerns about flight, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. They cite Supreme Court precedents, including cases on the permissible exercise of police power and the importance of personal liberty, to argue for release under stringent conditions until the completion of investigation. They seek to balance security concerns with constitutional protections and rely on decisions supporting bail as a general rule with exceptional circumstances.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents emphasize the seriousness of the offence and the potential danger to the complainant and witnesses. They argue that the alleged assault and grievous injuries, along with the alleged enmity, create a scenario where custodial abstinence could impede the investigation and risk public order. They urge the Court to maintain the presumption against bail in cases involving violent wrongdoing and to consider the possibility of repeat offences and evasion of the investigation if bail is granted. They rely on earlier decisions where the court required strict conditions and or refused bail in similar circumstances, asserting that the nature of the allegations requires careful scrutiny before bestowing bail. They stress the need to protect the victim’s rights and ensure effective investigation.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited to support the core bail principle that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, to ensure fair trial.
Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another	[2021(5)KHC 353]	Positive	Cited for the emphasis on personal liberty and the nuanced approach to bail even in serious offences.
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	Positive	Cited to differentiate between the power to arrest and justification for exercise of that power; supports non-routine arrest and safeguards.
Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation	[2023 KHC 6961]	Positive	Cited to illustrate that grave economic offences do not automatically bar bail; supports flexibility in bail considerations.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	[2020 (1) KHC 663]	Positive	Cited to support limits and conditions on bail and the balancing of investigative interests with personal liberty.
Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala	[2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260]	Positive	Cited to apply the court’s principle regarding bail and conditions within Kerala jurisprudence.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Reshmi, Abhin and Sunila v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:30607` ## **`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. 4290 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.457/2025 OF Paravoor Police Station, Kollam ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2025 IN BAIL APPL. ``` ``` NO.3185 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:`** - **`1 RESHMI AGED 38 YEARS, SASI VIHAR, KANNAMBA, VARKALA, PIN – 695 141.`** - **`2 ABHIN AGED 17 YEARS, SASI VIHAR KANNAMBA, VARKALA, PIN – 695 141.`** - **`3 SUNILA`** ``` AGED 26 YEARS, D/O SUNDHARAN, VADAVATTA HOUSE, KURUVATTA, ERATTAKULAM ALATHUR PO, PALAKKAD DIST, PIN – 678 682. ``` ``` BY ADV SANOJ M.A. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031`** - **`2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PARAVUR POLICE STATION, PARAVUR P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT,, PIN – 691 301.`** ``` 2025:KER:30607 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** B.A No.4290 of 2025 2 ``` *3ADDL.R3 SUMESH T. AGED 34 YEARS S/O THANKAMANI, SUMESH BHAVAN, THOPPU MOTTAKKAVU, CHULLIMANOOR P.O., PANAVOOR, NEDUMANGADU, PIN – 695 541 ``` ``` [ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02.04.2025 IN CRL MA No.1/2025 IN BA No.4290/2025] ``` ``` BY ADVS. KEERTHI VIJAYAN FEBA MARY THOMAS ANAND REMESH NOUSHAD K A, SR.PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:30607 ``` B.A No.4290 of 2025 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 3 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------B.A.No.4290 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. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.457 of 2025 of Paravoor Police Station, Kollam. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 126(2), 118(1), 118(2), 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). 3. The prosecution case is that due to enmity between the accused and the defacto complainant, accused Nos.1 to 3 trespass into the house of the defacto complainant and tied the legs of the complainant, who was lying in the room and tied the feet **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:30607 ``` ## B.A No.4290 of 2025 4 of the complainant and the accused sprinkled on the eyes of the complainant and the 4[th] accused hit him. It is alleged that the accused sustained serious injuries and grievous hurt. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. I also heard the counsel appearing for the defacto complainant. 5. Admittedly, the 1[st] petitioner, a lady, was residing with the defacto complainant for the last 7 years. In the relationship between the 1[st] petitioner and defacto complainant a child is also there. It is the case of the petitioners that, the defacto complainant started a relationship with another lady. The petitioners produced Annexure 4 photographs, showing the close relationship between the defacto complainant and the other lady. In connection with the same there was some wordy quarrel between the parties, which resulted in the injury is the submission. The 1[st] petitioner is a lady, the 2[nd] petitioner **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:30607 ``` ## B.A No.4290 of 2025 5 is the son of the defacto complainant and the 3[rd] petitioner is the friend of the 1[st] petitioner and the 3[rd] petitioner also a lady. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think bail can be granted to the petitioners after imposing stringent conditions. 6. 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. 7. 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. **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:30607` ## B.A No.4290 of 2025 6 “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 there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.” B.A No.4290 of 2025 7 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:30607 ``` 8. 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 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 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:30607` ## B.A No.4290 of 2025 8 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 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 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:30607` ## B.A No.4290 of 2025 9 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 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 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:30607 ``` ## B.A No.4290 of 2025 10 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** AMR