High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2025-04-01Bail granted with conditions

Sanjay K. S. v. State of Kerala and Palluruthy Kasaba Police Station

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No.3960 of 2025 (Crime No.20/2025)

Neutral Citation:2025:KER:27847

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2025-04-01
Court Decision / Holding: The Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: (1) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks and undergo interrogation. (2) After interrogation, if the IO proposes arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties for like sum. (3) The petitioner shall appear before the IO as required and shall cooperate with the investigation. (4) The petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the jurisdictional Court. (5) The petitioner shall not commit a similar offence. (6) The IO may investigate and effect recoveries even while the petitioner is on bail, as permitted by Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another. (7) The observations are strictly for deciding this bail application; Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala’s principle is applicable. (8) If any conditions are violated, the jurisdictional Court may cancel bail; the prosecution and victim may seek cancellation of bail if needed.
Final Disposition: Bail granted with conditions

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sanjay K. S.

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Station House Officer, Palluruthy Kasaba Police Station, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• N. Satheesh Priya Carol

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Nooshad.K.A, Sr.PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala bail petition concerns Sanjay K. S., accused in Crime No.20/2025 of Palluruthy Police Station, Ernakulam, seeking bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The underlying offences alleged are sections 115(2), 118(1), 296(b) & 3(5) of the BNS. The prosecution case stems from an incident on 31 December 2024, when the defacto complainant’s mother was verbally abused by the petitioner’s brother, leading to a confrontation as the complainant returned from New Year celebrations. The prosecution contends the petitioner, along with other accused, restrained the defacto complainant and that the first accused punched the nose with a steel bangle, resulting in injuries; the FIR was registered on 07 January 2025. Initially the case was under Section 118(1); after discharge summary dated 15 February 2025, Section 118(2) was added. The petitioner’s counsel argued that even if the allegations are accepted, the offences do not attract the provisions; there was a significant delay in registering the FIR. The Public Prosecutor argued that the 118(2) addition and the accused’s criminal antecedents justify keeping him in custody. The court, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Siddharth v. State of UP, Joginder Kumar, Manish Sisodia, Sushila Aggarwal and Anzar Azeez, held that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and accordingly allowed the bail with stringent conditions including a two‑week interrogation, a Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, non‑departure from India without permission, and ongoing cooperation with investigators; the court warned that violation could lead to cancellation of bail. The decision reflects a measured balance between individual liberty and investigative needs, with safeguards against intimidation and evasion of process.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)Sections 115(2), 118(1), 296(b) & 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)Section 118(2) of BNS (added after discharge summary)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
Personal liberty as a constitutional mandate; distinction between power to arrest and justification for arrest.
Arrest should not be routine; arrest must be justified and not prejudicial to fair trial.
Court may impose conditions and monitor bail while allowing investigation.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for the petitioner contends that even if the allegations are accepted in their entirety, the offences alleged do not attract the statutory provisions as framed. He highlights the unusual delay in registering the FIR, the lack of immediate serious injury at the time of discharge (as per the wound certificate), and the absence of coercive or imminent threat. The argument emphasizes that the gravity of the alleged act is not commensurate with the maximum punishment under the BNS 2023, and that there is no compelling reason to deny bail, particularly since the disputed relations and contested facts call for fair trial with stringent conditions rather than pretrial detention. The plea seeks to balance personal liberty with the needs of investigation, urging the court to grant bail subject to conditions ensuring the accused’s presence and preventing interference, including a bond and sureties, travel restrictions, and ongoing cooperation with the investigative process.

Contentions of Respondents

The prosecution opposes bail, arguing that the 118(2) addition was made after discharge; the accused has criminal antecedents and involvement in another case; the offences alleged are serious; the addition of 118(2) indicates grave injuries; The prosecution asserts bail should be denied due to risk of absconding, coercion, and interference with witnesses, warranting continued detention until investigation progresses.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited to support the basic bail principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another	2021(5)KHC 353	Positive	Used to emphasize personal liberty and the need to distinguish between arrest power and justification for arrest.
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 for the principle that arrest should not be routine and must be justified, respecting personal liberty.
Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation	2023 KHC 6961	Positive	Notes that even grave economic offences do not automatically deny bail, supporting a balanced approach.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited to justify cautious bail with conditions and monitoring during investigation.
Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala	2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260	Positive	Principle laid down recognized as applicable in this case.

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 Sanjay K. S. v. State of Kerala and Palluruthy Kasaba Police Station and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

B.A.No.3960 of 2025 1 2025:KER:27847 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **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. 3960 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.20/2025 OF PALLURUTHY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2025 IN CRMC NO.674 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1:** **SANJAY K. S. AGED 33 YEARS S/O SATHEESAN, ‘KALATHIPARAMBU HOUSE, EDAKOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682002** **BY ADVS. N.SATHEESH PRIYA CAROL** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** - **2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PALLURUTHY KASABA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682005** **BY ADV. SRI.NOUSHAD.K.A, SR.PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.3960 of 2025 2 2025:KER:27847 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.3960 of 2025 ------------------------------Dated this the 01[st] day of April, 2025 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.20/2025 of Palluruthy Police Station, Ernakulam. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 296(b) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'). 3. The prosecution case is that the brother of the petitioner verbally abused the mother of the defacto complainant. There was an altercation between the defacto complainant and the brother of the petitioner in connection with the above incident. Due to this enmity, the petitioner herein on 31.12.2024 at about 11.30 p.m., with an intention to inflict bodily injury to B.A.No.3960 of 2025 3 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27847 the defacto complainant, stood near to the Indira Gandhi Road waiting for the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant was coming back after new year celebration. The petitioner herein along with other accused wrongfully restrained him and verbally abused him. The first accused fisted on his nose using a steel bangle. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said offences. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offences alleged are not attracted. The counsel submitted that there was a long delay in registering the case. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that, originally Section 118(2) of the BNS was not included. Subsequently, after getting discharge summary, Section 118(2) of the BNS was also added. The Public Prosecutor submitted that there are criminal antecedents to the B.A.No.3960 of 2025 4 2025:KER:27847 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** petitioner and he is involved in yet another case. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the alleged incident happened on 31.12.2024. The First Information Statement was given only on 07.01.2025. Originally the case was registered under Section 118(1) of the BNS. At that time, there was no serious injury as per the wound certificate. When he was discharged and the discharge summary dated 15.02.2025 was produced, it was found that there was fracture. Hence Section 118(2) of the BNS was also added. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think this bail application can be allowed on 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 B.A.No.3960 of 2025 5 2025:KER:27847 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 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 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 selfesteem 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.3960 of 2025 6 2025:KER:27847 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 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. 11. 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 only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the B.A.No.3960 of 2025 7 2025:KER:27847 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 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 he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. B.A.No.3960 of 2025 8 2025:KER:27847 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 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. 8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, B.A.No.3960 of 2025 9 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27847 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** DM