2025:KER:26715 B.A.No.3906 OF 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 3906 OF 2025 CRIME NO.290/2025 OF Enath Police Station, Pathanamthitta PETITIONER/S: 1 VIDHYADHARAN.P AGED 70 YEARS S/O PRABHAKARAN, BIJEESH (H), KADABANAD NORTH P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691553 2 BIJEESH AGED 42 YEARS S/O. VIDHYADARAN.P, BIJEESH (H), KADABANAD NORTH P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691553 3 SURESH.V AGED 44 YEARS S/O VASUDEVAN, KANJIRATHINMUTTIL (H), EDAKAD P.O, PORUVAZHI, KOLLAM, PIN - 691552 4 NIDHIN RAMACHANDRAN AGED 35 YEARS S/O RAMACHANDRAN, CHARUVILA KIZHAKETHIL (H), KADABANAD NORTH P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691553 BY ADVS. T.K.SANDEEP ARJUN SREEDHAR ARUN KRISHNA DHAN ALEX ABRAHAM HARIKRISHNAN P.B. AMJITH C.M. SREELAKSHMI SHIBU 2025:KER:26715 B.A.No.3906 OF 2025 2 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 27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:26715 B.A.No.3906 OF 2025 3 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- B.A. No.3906 of 2025 --------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March, 2025 ORDER This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.290 of 2025 registered by the Enathu Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 75 and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 3. The prosecution case is that accused Nos.1 to 4 criminally trespassed into the sit out of the de facto complainant on 13.03.2025 at 00.30 hours and caught the hand of the de facto complainant through the window. It is also alleged that the accused destroyed the window panes and flower plots 2025:KER:26715 B.A.No.3906 OF 2025 4 causing damages to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, it is alleged that the petitioners committed the offences. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are not correct. The husband of the de facto complainant was the temple committee member and there was some disputes between the petitioners and the husband of the de facto complainant. Hence, they lodged false case against the petitioners. 6. The public prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, as per the report received by the public prosecutor, it is submitted that two of the accused are having criminal antecenents. 7. This court considered the contentions of the counsel for the petitioners and the learned public prosecutor. It is true that the allegations against the petitioenrs are serious. But the only 2025:KER:26715 B.A.No.3906 OF 2025 5 non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioners is Sections 333 and 375 of BNS. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think that the petitioners can be released on bail, but since there is criminal trespass and mischief, there can be a direction to deposit the damage assessed by the police in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in Davis P. R. v. State of Kerala [2025 (2) KHC 6]. Therefore, with that condition, the petitioners can be released on bail. 7. 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. 2025:KER:26715 B.A.No.3906 OF 2025 6 8. 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 2025:KER:26715 B.A.No.3906 OF 2025 7 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 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 2025:KER:26715 B.A.No.3906 OF 2025 8 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 him 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 he is suspected. 6. Needless to mention, it would 2025:KER:26715 B.A.No.3906 OF 2025 9 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 petitioners shall deposit Rs.2,500/- each before the jurisdictional court and produce the receipt at the time of surrender. The amount deposited will be subject to the final decision in the investigation and trial if any. 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 2025:KER:26715 B.A.No.3906 OF 2025 10 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