BAIL APPL. NO. 3949 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:26914 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. 3949 OF 2025 CRIME NO.103/2025 OF Mannar Police Station, Alappuzha AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMC NO.282 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA PETITIONER/S: NIDHIN B AGED 37 YEARS S/O BALAKRISHNAN PLAPPILLIL HOUSE ENNAKKAD P.O CHENGANNUR, PIN - 689506 BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV V.VINAY M.S.ANEER SARATH K.P. ANILKUMAR C.R. K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN DIPA V. RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF BAIL APPL. NO. 3949 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:26914 KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER CRIME NO. 103/2025 MANNAR POLICE STATION ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689622 3 AJITHAKUMARI S D/O.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, RAJESH BHAVANAM, EREZHA NORTH, CHETTIKULANGARA P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA (IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 27.03.24 IN CRL.MA 1/25 ) BY ADV RAKESH.R.K 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: BAIL APPL. NO. 3949 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:26914 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J –------------------------------------- B.A. No. 3949 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.103/2025 of Mannar Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A, 420 and 323 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that, the victim acquainted with the petitioner when she used to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mavelikara, where the petitioner was working as an LD Clerk. It is alleged that there developed an intimacy between the petitioner and BAIL APPL. NO. 3949 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:26914 the defacto complainant. It is further alleged that, by misusing that relationship, the petitioner obtained gold ornaments from her for pledging and cheated her without returning those ornaments. It is further alleged that on 02.01.2024, he took the defacto complainant in his car to Kumarakom Bird Sanctuary and on the way, he slapped on her cheek and while returning back, the petitioner sexually harassed her and outraged her modesty and thereby, committed the offences. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner, the Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant. 5. Admittedly, there is some relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant went to the court premises in connection with a domestic violence case. The petitioner was the staff of the court. Admittedly, the defacto complainant went along with the petitioner to Kumarakom. The main grievance of the BAIL APPL. NO. 3949 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:26914 defacto complainant is that her gold ornaments are taken and it is not returned. In such circumstances, whether the offences alleged are attracted, is a matter to be investigated by the investigating officer. I do not want to make any observation about the same. But, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. The prosecution can prove the case through oral and documentary evidence. The petitioner can be directed to surrender before the investigating officer. After interrogation, if the arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to release the petitioner 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3949 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:26914 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. “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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3949 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:26914 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3949 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:26914 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3949 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:26914 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. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3949 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:26914 to cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated. sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS