Sajeer K.M v State of Kerala and The Sub Inspector of Police Palarivattom Police Station, Ernakulam

``` 2025:KER:28758 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] 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. 4176 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.234/2025 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` SAJEER K.M AGED 39 YEARS, SON OF MUHAMMED ALI, KALAPURAKKAL HOUSE, CHERANELLOOR P.O., CHERANELLOOR VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 034. ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.M.ZIRAJ IRFAN ZIRAJ ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031.`** - **`2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 025.`** ``` BY ADV G SUDHEER, PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:28758 ``` B.A No.4176 of 2025 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **--------------------------------------B.A. No.4176 of 2025** **-------------------------------------Dated this the 2[nd] day of April, 2025** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.234 of 2025 of Palarivattom Police Station, Ernakulam. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage bus bearing Registration No.KL-40-8640. It is alleged that the petitioner borrowed money and gold ornaments from the defacto complainant and hypothecated the vehicle with her towards security and thereafter the vehicle has been **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28758 ``` ## B.A No.4176 of 2025 3 taken by the petitioner without notice to the defacto complainant and thereby committed the offence of theft. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Section 303(2) of BNS is not attracted. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. 6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the report received by him, no criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioner. 7. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, there is some dispute regarding the ownership of a vehicle. The defacto complainant complained that the petitioner committed theft. The petitioner submitted that **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28758 ``` ## B.A No.4176 of 2025 4 it is his vehicle and he is the RC owner. I do not want to make any observation about the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think bail can be granted to the petitioner 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 (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. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:28758` ## B.A No.4176 of 2025 5 “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.4176 of 2025 6 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28758 ``` 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 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. 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 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:28758` ## B.A No.4176 of 2025 7 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 Court. 5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:28758` ## B.A No.4176 of 2025 8 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. 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. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:28758` ## B.A No.4176 of 2025 9 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 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