BAIL APPL. NO. 4221 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:28887 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4221 OF 2025 CRIME NO.86/2025 OF MALAYALAPUZHA POLICE STATION, Pathanamthitta AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2025 IN CRMP NO.1472 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA PETITIONER/S: NITHIN NARENDRAN AGED 29 YEARS S/O.NARENDRAN, VADAKKEKKARA VEEDU, ATHUMPUMKULAM.P.O, KONNI THAZHAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689692 BY ADV K.SEENA 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 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 4221 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:28887 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J –------------------------------------- B.A. No. 4221 of 2025 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd 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 the 4th accused in Crime No. 86/2025 of Malayalapuzha Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Secs. 329(3), 296(b), 351(2), 118(1), 126(2), 324(5),189(4), 191(2) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 3. The prosecution case is that on 04.02.2025 at about 11 pm, after trespassing into the residential house of the defacto complainant, hurled obscene words. The 1st accused in the crime had hacked the defacto complainant using a knife, inflicted injury, while the 2nd accused had BAIL APPL. NO. 4221 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:28887 repeatedly beaten the defacto complainant using an angler and the 3rd accused had beaten the defacto complainant using a pipe. In addition, the petitioner, 4th accused and the other accused persons had vandalized the residential house of the defacto complainant by destroying the tiles of the roof, flower pots and a scooter, causing loss to the tune of Rs.8,000/- to the defacto complainant. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the 4th accused. The counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offences. He was only present there. He also sustained injury. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no criminal antecedents to the petitioner. The alleged incident happened at 11 pm. The petitioner was present at the place of occurrence. The BAIL APPL. NO. 4221 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:28887 prosecution case is that the accused trespassed into the house of the victim and attacked and committed mischief. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the petitioner, who is only the 4th accused, can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. But in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Davis P. R. v. State of Kerala [2025 (2) KHC 6], this Court can can direct the accused to deposit a portion of the damage, while considering the bail application, subject to the final decision of the investigation and the trial, if any. In this case, the damage assessed is Rs.8,000/-. There are other accused also. Therefore, there can be a direction to the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.2,000/-. 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 relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as BAIL APPL. NO. 4221 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:28887 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 investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer BAIL APPL. NO. 4221 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:28887 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. 4221 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:28887 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/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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4221 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:28887 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. 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. The petitioner shall deposit BAIL APPL. NO. 4221 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:28887 an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Two Thousand only) before the jurisdictional court and produce the receipt before the investigating officer, at the time of surrender. 9. 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