Sabith @ Muhammed Sabith v. State of Kerala

2025:KER:26744 **==> 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. 3907 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.160/2025 OF Manjeswar Police Station, Kasargod** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.03.2025 IN CRMC NO.349 OF 2025 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - I, KASARAGOD** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SABITH @ MUHAMMED SABITH AGED 24 YEARS S/O HAMEED, RESIDING AT MA MANZIL, PERINGADI, MANGALPADY.P.O, MANJESWER TALUK, KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN - 671324** **BY ADVS. ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH E.MOHAMMED SHAFI PRAJIT RATNAKARAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** 2 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:26744 B.A.No.3907 of 2025 ## **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:26744 3 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** B.A.No.3907 of 2025 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **----------------------------** ## **B.A. No.3907 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.160 of 2025 of Manjeswar Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 7 r/w 8, 10 r/w 9(1) of PoCSO Act, 2012, Section 75(1)(i) and 137(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. The prosecution case is that one day in the end of May, 2024 at a place called Parakkatta, the accused with the sexual intention, kissed the victim and further, on another day, in the first week of July, 2024 the accused with the sexual 2025:KER:26744 4 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** B.A.No.3907 of 2025 intention kidnapped and taken the victim in his vehicle to a place called Mussody, without the consent of her lawful guardian and from there hugged and kissed her. Hence the petitioner committed the above offences. 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. There is a love relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. 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. 7. This Court considered the contentions of 2025:KER:26744 5 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** B.A.No.3907 of 2025 the petitioner and the public prosecutor. Admittedly, there is some relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. The main allegation against the petitioner is that he kissed and hugged the de facto complainant from two places in May 2024 and July 2024 and the complaint is filed in February, 2025. Considering the facts and circumstances of the cases, I think that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary and the prosecution can prove the case through oral or documentary evidence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. There can be directed to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer two days continuously so that the investigation can be completed. After that, if his 2025:KER:26744 6 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** B.A.No.3907 of 2025 arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to release the petitioner on bail. 5. 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. 6. 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. 2025:KER:26744 7 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** B.A.No.3907 of 2025 “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.” 7. In **Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of** **Investigation [2023 KHC 6961]** , the Apex Court 2025:KER:26744 B.A.No.3907 of 2025 8 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 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. 8. 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 petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for two days from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m continuously after surrender. **==> picture [316 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on 2025:KER:26744 B.A.No.3907 of 2025 9 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 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 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 2025:KER:26744 10 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** B.A.No.3907 of 2025 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**_ _**v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another**_ [2020 (1) KHC 663]. 7. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the 11 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:26744 B.A.No.3907 of 2025 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/