BAIL APPL. NO. 4103 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:28268 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4103 OF 2025 CRIME NO.105/2025 OF Mannar Police Station, Alappuzha PETITIONER/S: 1 ASWIN ASHOK AGED 20 YEARS S/O ASHOK, MADHAVASSERIL, CHENNITHALA, MAVELIKKARA, KERALA, PIN - 690105 2 ASWIN RANJEEV @ AMBADI AGED 21 YEARS S/O RANJEEV KUMAR, PALLYAMPIL, KIZHAKKEVAZHY, CHENNITHALA, MAVELIKKARA, KERALA, PIN - 690105 3 ABHIJITH PA AGED 20 YEARS S/O AJITHKUMAR P.N., PALLIAMBIL, CHENNITHALA, MAVELIKKARA, KERALA, PIN - 690105 BY ADVS. P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE RUBAN JOE TONIYO RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA BAIL APPL. NO. 4103 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:28268 REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT: SR PP-HRITHWIK C S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 4103 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:28268 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J –------------------------------------- B.A. No. 4103 of 2025 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2025 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 105/2025 of Mannar Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Secs. 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 126(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) 3. The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant, his wife and a friend named Anil went to the BAIL APPL. NO. 4103 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:28268 house of the 7th accused on 10.2.2025 at 10:30 p.m., to receive money from him. However, the 7th accused and his relatives assaulted the defacto complainant and his wife. When Anil tried to stop the assault, he was caught hold by the accused persons and the 7th accused slashed him with a big knife on his back. It is also alleged that the accused persons encouraged each other to commit the crime. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out against the petitioners. The counsel submitted that the admitted prosecution case is that the 7th accused, who is now arrayed as the 1st accused owned the house and the defacto complainant and others trespassed to the house of the 1st accused. The counsel submitted that the BAIL APPL. NO. 4103 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:28268 petitioners have not committed any offences. It is also submitted that the 5th accused is already released on bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that no criminal antecedents are alleged against the petitioners, as per the report received by him. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the incident happened in the house of the 1st accused. The alleged incident happened at 10.30 pm. According to the defacto complainant, they went there to demand and collect money. At that time, the defacto complainant was attacked by the accused. I do not want to make any further opinion about the case. I also noted that no criminal antecedents are alleged against the petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the petitioners can be released on bail, after imposing stringent conditions. BAIL APPL. NO. 4103 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:28268 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. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4103 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:28268 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.” 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4103 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:28268 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) 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4103 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:28268 indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her 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 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, BAIL APPL. NO. 4103 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:28268 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 observations and findings 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4103 OF 2025 11 2025:KER:28268 liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court to cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS