2025:KER:28340 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. 4278 OF 2025 CRIME NO.256/2025 OF CHIRAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED: DAS V AGED 59 YEARS, S/O KUNJU KRISHNA PILLA, VALIYAELA, THOTTAVARAM, CHIRAYINKEEZHU PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN – 695 304. BY ADVS. V.S.ABHISHEK ROHITH KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS/STATE: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031. 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHIRAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN – 695 304. BY ADV NOUSHAD K A, SR PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:28340 B.A No.4278 of 2025 2 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------------- B.A. No.4278 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. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.256 of 2025 of Chirayinkeezhu Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 296(b), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). 3. The prosecution case is that accused Nos.2 to 4 entered in the the house of the defacto complainant at around 12:30 a.m. on 28.02.2025, and attacked the defacto complainant in a dispute, which arose on account of the defacto complainant releasing the cows of the 1st 2025:KER:28340 B.A No.4278 of 2025 3 accused and that the 1st accused came there on scooter, on being informed of the same and hit the defacto complainant on the back of his head with a torch. The further allegation is that accused Nos.2 to 4 hit the 2nd and 3rd injured with a coconut shell. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the non-bailable offences alleged against the petitioner is under Sections 118(1) and 110 of BNS. The counsel submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted the offence under Section 110 of BNS is not attracted. Only minor injury sustained to the victim. 6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the report received by him, no criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioner. 2025:KER:28340 B.A No.4278 of 2025 4 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the offence under Section 110 of BNS is attracted is a matter to be investigated. I do not want to make any observation about the same. As far as Section 118(1) of BNS is concerned only minor injuries sustained to the victim. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think bail can be granted to the petitioner after imposing stringent conditions. I also considered the fact that there is no criminal antecedent alleged against the petitioner. 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 that the accused has the 2025:KER:28340 B.A No.4278 of 2025 5 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 2025:KER:28340 B.A No.4278 of 2025 6 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.” 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 petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation. 2025:KER:28340 B.A No.4278 of 2025 7 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 facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 2025:KER:28340 B.A No.4278 of 2025 8 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]. 2025:KER:28340 B.A No.4278 of 2025 9 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 AMR