BAIL APPL. NO. 3936 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:26547 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. 3936 OF 2025 CRIME NO.118/2025 OF Kannanalloor Police Station, Kollam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMC NO.403 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM PETITIONER/S: SHEMEER ABOOBACKER AGED 45 YEARS S/O ABOOBACKER,VAZHAVILA VEEDU, CHEREEKONAM, THRIKKOVILVATTOM,KOLLAM, PIN - 691576 BY ADVS. AJAYA KUMAR. G FATHIMA MAJEED RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KANNANALLOOR POLICE STATION,KOLLAM, PIN - 691576 OTHER PRESENT: BAIL APPL. NO. 3936 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:26547 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. 3936 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:26547 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J –------------------------------------- B.A. No. 3936 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 (BNSS). 2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.118/2024 of Kannanalloor Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 110, 118(2) r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 3. The prosecution case is that, the accused persons, due to prior enmity, on 21.01.2025, attempted to hit the defacto complainant and his friends by driving a silver colour car towards them. The defacto complainant by seeing the car, pulled his friend Abdul Salam and both of them fell BAIL APPL. NO. 3936 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:26547 down to the side of the road and that time, the victim sustained fracture. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 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 Section 118(2) of BNS is not attracted. The counsel submitted that the fracture, even if sustained, is not because of any overtact from the side of the petitioner and also submitted that the ingredients of Section 110 of BNS is also not attracted. 6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, he conceded that as per the report received by him from the Investigating Officer, no criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioner. 7. This Court considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Whether the ingredients of Sections 110 and 118(2) of the BAIL APPL. NO. 3936 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:26547 BNS are attracted or not in the facts and circumstances of the case, is a matter to be investigated. I do not want to make any observation about the same. After going through the prosecution case and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since there is no criminal antecedents to the petitioner, petitioner can be granted 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3936 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:26547 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 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. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this BAIL APPL. NO. 3936 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:26547 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3936 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:26547 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. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3936 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:26547 another [2020 (1) KHC 663]. 7. 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