BAIL APPL. NO. 3939 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:26548 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. 3939 OF 2025 CRIME NO.201/2025 OF Aryancode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram PETITIONER/S: ASHIK A AGED 19 YEARS S/O. ARSHAD, DAR-UL HAMD, PEZHUMMOODU, POOVACHAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695575 BY ADVS. ABDUL JAWAD K. A.GRANCY JOSE AYSHA A.A. RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 STATE OF KERALA ARYANCODE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695125 OTHER PRESENT: BAIL APPL. NO. 3939 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:26548 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: BAIL APPL. NO. 3939 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:26548 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J –------------------------------------- B.A. No. 3939 of 2025 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March, 2025 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No. 201/2025 of Aryancode Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Secs. 126(2), 115(2) and 109 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 3. The prosecution allegation in brief is as follows: On 27.02.2025 at about 12.50 p.m., near the gate of Immanuel College, Vazhichal, the accused Nos. 1 and 2, who are the first year students of B.Com Finance, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, who is the 1st year student of Business BAIL APPL. NO. 3939 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:26548 Information System, and the 1st accused threatened him and fisted on his cheek, and fell him down, and thereafter, put both his legs together and put his head on the floor, and hit 3-4 times, on his left ear and left side of his head with his hand. On seeing this, when one Sidhu intervened, the 1st accused kicked on the neck of the defacto complainant with his right leg, and the 2nd accused removed Sidhu from the place, thereby aided the 1st accused to again attack the defacto complainant, and at that time, the 1st accused kicked on the back side of the head of 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, the main allegation is against the 1st accused. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is the 2nd accused and he is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the report received by him, no criminal BAIL APPL. NO. 3939 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:26548 antecedents are alleged against the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner is a student. The incident happened in a college. A perusal of the prosecution case will show that the main overtact is attributed to the 1st accused. No criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the petitioner 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 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. BAIL APPL. NO. 3939 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:26548 “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.” 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3939 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:26548 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. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3939 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:26548 facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her 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. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3939 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:26548 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 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