2025:KER:28055 BAIL APPL. NOS.4032 & 4089 OF 2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4032 OF 2025 CRIME NO.441/2025 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4: SREENATH V., AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAKUMAR R., LAKSHMI BHAVANAM, THOTTUA MURI, PALLICKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-690504 BY ADVS. KEVIN JAMES SHABNAM SAIDALAVI ATHUL M.V. DEAGO JOHN K ASWIN V. NAIR RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER ADOOR POLICE STATION, ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN-691523 SRI.C.SHRITHWICK, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2025, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL.4089/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:28055 BAIL APPL. NOS.4032 & 4089 OF 2025 -2- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4089 OF 2025 CRIME NO.441/2025 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2: 1 MAHESH M., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. MURALIDHARAN, MANOJ BHAVANAM, ANAYADI P.O., THOTTUVA, PALLIKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRIC, PIN-690561 2 AJITH RAJAN, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. RAJAN, AKHIL BHAVANAM, THUVAYOOR SOUTH P.O., KADAMPANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-691552 BY ADV E.S.ASHRAF RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682031 2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN-691523 SRI.NOUSHAD, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2025, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL.4032/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:28055 BAIL APPL. NOS.4032 & 4089 OF 2025 -3- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------------------- B.A.Nos.4032 of 2025 & 4089 of 2025 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 2025 ORDER The petitioner in B.A.No.4032/2025 is the 4th accused and the petitioners in B.A.No.4089/2025 are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.441/2025 of Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 333, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 74, 324(4), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution case is that on 26.02.2025 at about 11.20 p.m., while the defacto complainant was sitting in the sit-out of her house, the accused persons came in scooter and bike and accused Nos.1 and 2 trespassed into her house. It is alleged that the 1st accused wrongfully restrained Praveen, the son of the defacto complainant and beat him on 2025:KER:28055 BAIL APPL. NOS.4032 & 4089 OF 2025 -4- his cheek. In the meanwhile, the 4th accused, Sreenath was standing in the road in front of the house. During that incident, the 3rd accused also trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant with a teak stick. It is alleged that the 1st accused beat on the left hand of the said Praveen. The 1st accused also caught hold of the neck of the defacto complainant, beat on her cheek. In the scuffle, her gold chain got broken. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offences. 3. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 4. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offences alleged are not attracted. The counsel also submitted that the son of the defacto complainant misbehaved with a girl, which led to a verbal altercation. Hence, false case is foisted. 5. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that as per 2025:KER:28055 BAIL APPL. NOS.4032 & 4089 OF 2025 -5- the instructions received, no criminal antecedents are alleged against the petitioners. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 7. It is true that the allegations against the petitioners are serious as it is alleged that the petitioners trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and the attacked the defacto complainant. But the maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offences alleged is upto 7 years. Moreover, no criminal antecedents are alleged against the petitioners. 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 2025:KER:28055 BAIL APPL. NOS.4032 & 4089 OF 2025 -6- 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. “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 2025:KER:28055 BAIL APPL. NOS.4032 & 4089 OF 2025 -7- 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 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 2025:KER:28055 BAIL APPL. NOS.4032 & 4089 OF 2025 -8- 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 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. 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 2025:KER:28055 BAIL APPL. NOS.4032 & 4089 OF 2025 -9- which they are 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 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. 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. 2025:KER:28055 BAIL APPL. NOS.4032 & 4089 OF 2025 -10- 8. There can be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer on all Sundays at 10.00 a.m. till the final report is filed. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE bpr 2025:KER:28055 BAIL APPL. NOS.4032 & 4089 OF 2025 -11- APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 4032/2025 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure-Al THE TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO:441/2025 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION IN PATHANAMTHITTA Annexure A2 THE TRUE HAND WRITTEN COPY OF THE F.I.S. IN CRIME NO:441/2025 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION 2025:KER:28055 BAIL APPL. NOS.4032 & 4089 OF 2025 -12- APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 4089/2025 PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.441/2025 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 17.03.2025 IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.2002 /2025 AND CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.2194/2025 OF THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA