BAIL APPL. NO. 4222 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:29416 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4222 OF 2025 CRIME NO.288/2024 OF Mulavukad Police Station, Ernakulam PETITIONER/S: NOUSHAR BAN @ CHIKKU AGED 20 YEARS S/O. HANEEF, AMBALATHU VEEDU, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MALIPURAM, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682001 BY ADV HABEEBA MOOSA RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA 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 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 4222 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:29416 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J –------------------------------------- B.A. No.4222 of 2025 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2025 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No. 288/2024 of Mulavukadu Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Secs. 307, 354A, 324, 294(b), 427 and 506 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 23.04.2024 at 10.00 pm, the defacto complainant on questioning the accused, by making obscene comments against his wife, the accused threatened the defacto complainant and attacked him. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public BAIL APPL. NO. 4222 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:29416 Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is not correct. It is also submitted that the matter is settled between the parties and a Criminal Miscellaneous case is filed before this Court to quash the proceedings. The same is pending. In that Crl.M.C., the defacto complainant filed an affidavit stating that he has no objection to quash the proceedings. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant him bail. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has got criminal antecedents and he is involved in 8 other cases. It is also submitted that all the cases are serious in nature. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Simply because, the defacto complainant submitted that he has no grievance, this Court cannot conclude that no such incident happened. But, considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also BAIL APPL. NO. 4222 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:29416 considering the fact that the petitioner is a youngster aged 20 years, I think the petitioner can be released on bail, 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4222 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:29416 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. 10. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4222 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:29416 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 acquainted with the BAIL APPL. NO. 4222 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:29416 facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her 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 another [2020 (1) KHC 663]. BAIL APPL. NO. 4222 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:29416 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 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