B.A.No.3947 of 2025 1 2025:KER:26945 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 3947 OF 2025 CRIME NO.22/2025 OF PATANAKKAD POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 11.03.2025 IN CRMC NO.254 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 2 & 4: 1 SARATH, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O SUSEELA, THARAVEETTUVELI, THYCAL.P.O, KADAKKARAPPALLY CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688530 2 GOUTHAM.V.S AGED 29 YEARS S/O SASIDHARAN.V.V, VELIYIL, KADAKKARAPPALLY, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688530 BY ADVS. T.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR C.H.ABDUL RASAC RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 SR PP – SRI. NOUSHAD K A THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.3947 of 2025 2 2025:KER:26945 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- B.A.No.3947 of 2025 ------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2025 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioners are accused in Crime No.22/2025 of Pattanakkadu Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 296(b), 74, 351(2) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short 'BNS'). 3. The alleged incident happened in connection with the festival at Punnackal Parambu Bhajana Madom temple. The husband and brother of the defacto complainant operated the mic set at the program. From 8.30 PM to 10.00 Pm, a devotional 'ganamela' was conducted in the temple. When the song was over at 10.PM, the brother of the defacto complainant turned off the mic. At that time the 1st accused caught hold of his shirt and demanded to play songs. After that incident, at 11.00 pm, when B.A.No.3947 of 2025 3 2025:KER:26945 the defacto complainant and others returned from the temple, the 1st accused kicked on the chest of the husband of the defacto complainant. The 1st accused again beaten the husband of the defacto complainant by his hand and when the brother of the defacto complainant tried to intervene, the accused beaten him by his hand. When the defacto complainant tried to obstruct the accused, the 1st accused caught hold on the hands of the defacto complainant and get close to his body, slapped on the leg of the son of the defacto complainant and thereby committed the alleged offences. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1st accused was already arrested and released on bail as per order dated 28.03.2025 in B.A. No.4122/2025. The counsel submitted that the main allegation is against the 1st accused. The counsel also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grants them bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that, no criminal B.A.No.3947 of 2025 4 2025:KER:26945 antecedents are alleged against the petitioners. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the 1st accused was arrested and released on bail by this Court. The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 4. No criminal antecedents are alleged against the petitioners. 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 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. B.A.No.3947 of 2025 5 2025:KER:26945 “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.” 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: B.A.No.3947 of 2025 6 2025:KER:26945 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) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. B.A.No.3947 of 2025 7 2025:KER:26945 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. 6. 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. 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 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 B.A.No.3947 of 2025 8 2025:KER:26945 another [2020 (1) KHC 663]. 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 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