BA No.3759 of 2025 1 2025:KER:30070 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 3759 OF 2025 CRIME NO.161/2025 OF Pavaratty Police Station, Thrissur AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.2903 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: SREEHARI AGED 18 YEARS, S/O KANNAN P.K, PADIYATH (H), CHOONAMANA, THOYAKKAVU, VENGITANGU, PIN - 680513 BY ADVS. DHANESH V.MADHAVAN DEVIKA K.R. RESPONDENT ( S )/COMPLAINANT : STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031 BY ADV.: SR PP-NOUSHAD K A THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BA No.3759 of 2025 2 2025:KER:30070 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- BA No.3759 of 2025 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 07th day of April, 2025 O R D E R This bail application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. 2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.161/2025 of Pavaratty Police Station, Thrissur. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1) and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 3. The petitioner is a Plus Two student of Al- Imul Islam Higher Secondary School, Padoor, Thrissur BA No.3759 of 2025 3 2025:KER:30070 District. It is alleged that on 17.02.2025 at 04.00 PM, the petitioner and other students rushed into the examination hall and restrained and pushed down the teacher who was in invigilation duty and assaulted a Plus One student named Rashid Muhammed Rafi using their hands and a stick. It is also alleged that the accused destroyed the exam sheets and created chaos in the examination hall. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is not correct. He is only a student aged 18 years. The counsel also submitted that the student who allegedly assaulted by the accused, filed an affidavit stating that he has no grievance against the BA No.3759 of 2025 4 2025:KER:30070 petitioner. It is also submitted that the Principal-in- charge of the School also filed an affidavit stating that she has no grievance to the petitioner. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court, if this Court grant him bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 7. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is serious. But the petitioner is aged 18 years. The Principal-in- charge and the victim boy also filed affidavits stating that they have no grievance against the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. BA No.3759 of 2025 5 2025:KER:30070 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. “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 BA No.3759 of 2025 6 2025:KER:30070 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.” 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. BA No.3759 of 2025 7 2025:KER:30070 Considering the dictum laid down in the above decisions and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following conditions: 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 satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned. 3. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation BA No.3759 of 2025 8 2025:KER:30070 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. 6. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding BA No.3759 of 2025 9 2025:KER:30070 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. 7. 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]. 8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional court can cancel the bail in BA No.3759 of 2025 10 2025:KER:30070 accordance to law, even though this bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN nvj JUDGE