BAIL APPL. NO. 4120 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:28273 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. 4120 OF 2025 CRIME NO.151/2025 OF CHITHARA POLICE STATION, Kollam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 04.03.2025 IN CRMC NO.409 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM PETITIONER/S: 1 ABHIJITH @ MEETTU AGED 20 YEARS S/O MINI, MAHAGONY COLONY [ EX COLONY ] CHITHARA, KOLLAM [RURAL], KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691559 2 ABHINAND@PATTU AGED 19 YEARS S/O SHYNI, MAHAGONY COLONY [ EX COLONY ], CHITHARA, KOLLAM [RURAL], KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691559 BY ADVS. GAYATHRI MURALEEDHARAN ARCHANA B. STEFIN THOMAS NAEEM RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BAIL APPL. NO. 4120 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:28273 OTHER PRESENT: SR PP-NOUSHAD K A THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 4120 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:28273 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J –------------------------------------- B.A. No. 4120 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 accused Nos. 3 and 4 in Crime No. 151/2025 of Chithara Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Secs. 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 110 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). 3. The prosecution case is that on 28.01.2025 at 8:45, the 1st accused along with other accused jointly attacked the defacto complainant with a stick. The 1st accused inflicted injury on the head of the defacto complainant by using stick. It is further alleged that the 2nd accused struck the defacto BAIL APPL. NO. 4120 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:28273 complainant’s left hand causing pain while the other accused kicked him. When the defacto complainant fell down on the attack of the 1st and 2nd accused, the petitioners stamped him along with other 4 accused people. The victim is the father of the 1st accused. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The main allegation is against the 1st accused. It is submitted that the 1st accused is the son of the victim. It is also submitted that the matter is settled between the 1st accused and the victim. It is also submitted that the 2nd accused is already released on bail by this Court, as per order dated 24.02.2025 in BA No.2274/2025. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the report received by him, no criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioners. 6. This Court perused the prosecution case. A perusal of the same would show that the main allegation is BAIL APPL. NO. 4120 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:28273 against the 1st and 2nd accused. Comparing to the allegation against the 1st and 2nd accused, the allegation against the petitioners, who are the 3rd and 4th accused is less. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the bail can be granted to the petitioners, after imposing stringent conditions. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4120 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:28273 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.” 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. 8. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4120 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:28273 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 indirectly make any inducement, threat or BAIL APPL. NO. 4120 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:28273 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, 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) BAIL APPL. NO. 4120 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:28273 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 liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court to cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS