BAIL APPL. NO. 3660 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:28270 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 3660 OF 2025 CRIME NO.82/2025 OF Thrikkakara Police Station, Ernakulam PETITIONER/S: FR. NELSON KOLLANASSERY AGED 36 YEARS S/O AUGUSTINE K, KOLLANASSERY HOUSE, PIZHALA P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682027 BY ADVS. BASIL CHANDY VAVACHAN GEORGIE SIMON CHARUTHA BHAIJU CHANDHANA BHAIJU BASIL SAJAN FATHIM NAVAS KAVYA RANI JAYAPRAKASH LEKSHMI PRIYA V. ANJANA V. MUHAMMED SHUHAIB A.S. RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT: SR PP-NOUSHAD K A THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 3660 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:28270 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J –------------------------------------- B.A. No. 3660 of 2025 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2025 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 82/2025 of Thrikkakara Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Secs. 376(2)(n) and 420 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that , the defacto complainant acquainted with the petitioner, who is the priest of a church from 04.05.2022 onwards. Subsequently, the petitioner made a false promise of marriage intending to exploit and deceive the defacto complainant. It is the allegation BAIL APPL. NO. 3660 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:28270 of the defacto complainant that on 09.12.2022, 08.01.2023, 26.05.2023, the petitioner engaged in sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant at her residence at Vazhakkala. Additionally, the petitioner recorded the video footage of these incidents on his mobile phone. The accused received a total amount of Rs.1,43,000/- from the defacto complainant. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, it is clear that it is a consensual sexual relationship. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 6. This Court perused the First Information Statement given by the victim. A perusal of the same would show that there is a long standing relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant paid money to the petitioner, at difficult times. It BAIL APPL. NO. 3660 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:28270 is also admitted by the defacto complainant that there was sexual relationship continuously. If the defacto complainant says that there was a promise to marry, admittedly the defacto complainant know that the petitioner is a priest and he cannot marry a woman. Even then, the relationship continued. Now, when the petitioner is not taking phone calls of the defacto complainant, she filed the present case. 7. After going through the FI statement, I think the petitioner can be released on bail, after imposing stringent conditions. There can be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer for two days continuously for interrogation and after interrogation, if there is arrest, there can be a direction to release the petitioner on bail, 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3660 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:28270 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. “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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3660 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:28270 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.” 9. 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. 10. 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 continuously from 10.00 am to 4.00 pm, after surrender. BAIL APPL. NO. 3660 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:28270 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 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. BAIL APPL. NO. 3660 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:28270 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. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3660 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:28270 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, 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 SKS