Shajahhan and Nissar v. The Station House Officer, Mananthavady Police Station, Wayanad; State of Kerala

BAIL APPL. NO. 4501 OF 2025 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30577 ## **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. 4501 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.298/2025 OF Mananthavady Police Station, Wayanad** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 SHAJAHAN AGED 37 YEARS S/O USMAN, KURUDAN HOUSE, EDAVAKA P.O., MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD, PIN - 670645** - **2 NISSAR AGED 42 YEARS S/O USMAN, KURUDAN HOUSE, EDAVAKA P.O., MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD, PIN - 670645** **BY ADVS. SUNNY MATHEW BHAVANA K.K** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MANANTHAVADY POLICE STATION, WAYANAD, PIN - 670645** - **2 STATE OF KERALA (RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM COCHIN, PIN - 682031** BAIL APPL. NO. 4501 OF 2025 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30577 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR PP-HRITHWIK C S** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 4501 OF 2025 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30577 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **–-------------------------------------** **B.A. No.4501 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. The petitioners are the accused in crime No. 298/2025 of Mananthavady Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Secs.74, 115(2) and 296(b) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The prosecution case is that on 23.02.2025 at 12.30 pm, the defacto complainant, who is the wife of the brother of the petitioners, came to her marital home on the strength of a residence order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mananthavady. At that time, the petitioners uttered obscene words and the accused No.1 caused injury on BAIL APPL. NO. 4501 OF 2025 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30577 her hand by biting her and the accused No.2 caught hold of her hair and also threatened to kill her. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The only non-bailable offence alleged is under Sec.74 of the BNS. A reading of the prosecution case would show that the attempt of the petitioners is to assault the victim. Whether the ingredients of Sec.74 of BNS is attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case is a matter to be investigated. I do not want to make any observation about the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the petitioners can be released on bail 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4501 OF 2025 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30577 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. “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.” BAIL APPL. NO. 4501 OF 2025 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30577 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. 9. 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 only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the BAIL APPL. NO. 4501 OF 2025 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30577 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/her 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 they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. BAIL APPL. NO. 4501 OF 2025 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30577 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4501 OF 2025 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30577 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** SKS