2025:KER:28154 BAIL APPL. NO. 4295 OF 2025 1 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. 4295 OF 2025 CRIME NO.405/2025 OF Kundara Police Station, Kollam PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5: 1 HARI AGED 25 YEARS S/O UTHAMAN , MANGARATH VADAKKETHIL, ILLAM NAGAR 151,ERAVIPURAM,VALATHUNGAL.P.O, KOLLAM -, PIN - 691011 2 SARITHA AGED 38 YEARS W/O SHAJI, VAYALIL PUTHEN VEEDU, ATTOORPANA, KOLASSERI, ALUMMOODU.P.O, KOLLAM -, PIN - 691577 3 SHAJI AGED 45 YEARS S/O GOPALAN, VAYALIL PUTHEN VEEDU,ATTOORPANA, KOLASSERI, ALUMMOODU.P.O, KOLLAM -, PIN - 691577 4 AMBILY AGED 49 YEARS W/O UTHAMAN , MANGARATH VADAKKETHIL,ILLAM NAGAR 151,ERAVIPURAM, VALATHUNGAL.P.O, KOLLAM -, PIN - 691011 5 UTHAMAN AGED 51 YEARS S/O SEKHARAN , MANGARATH VADAKKETHIL, ILLAM NAGAR 151,ERAVIPURAM,VALATHUNGAL.P.O, KOLLAM -, PIN - 691011 2025:KER:28154 BAIL APPL. NO. 4295 OF 2025 2 BY ADV KEERTHI SOLOMON RESPONDENT/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER KUNDARA POLICE STATION ELAMPALLOR, KUNDARA,, PIN - 691501 3 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX OTHER PRESENT: PP-G SUDHEER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:28154 BAIL APPL. NO. 4295 OF 2025 3 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- B.A.No.4295 of 2025 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 02nd day of April, 2025 ORDER This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.405/2025 of Kundara Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 64, 96 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, BNS) and Sections 4(1) r/w 3(a), 6(1) r/w 5(j)(ii), 5(l), 5(n) and 21(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012. 3. Petitioners 2 to 5 are the parents and other relatives of the 1st petitioner and the victim. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that, the 1st petitioner who is the relative of the victim kidnapped the victim on 13.05.2024 and thereafter repeatedly committed rape and penetrative sexual 2025:KER:28154 BAIL APPL. NO. 4295 OF 2025 4 assault on the victim and thereby impregnated her. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1st petitioner and the victim were in a love relationship. The allegation against the petitioners is not correct. It is also submitted that the victim filed an affidavit before this Court stating that she has no grievance against the petitioner. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant them bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioners are serious. But now the victim is major and the 1st petitioner is aged 25. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the 1st petitioner already married the victim on 16.03.2025. The victim filed an affidavit as evident by Annexure-D. It is true that simply because the 1st petitioner married the victim, the allegation will not disappear. 2025:KER:28154 BAIL APPL. NO. 4295 OF 2025 5 But, Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioners 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 2025:KER:28154 BAIL APPL. NO. 4295 OF 2025 6 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 2025:KER:28154 BAIL APPL. NO. 4295 OF 2025 7 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 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) each 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 2025:KER:28154 BAIL APPL. NO. 4295 OF 2025 8 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. 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 2025:KER:28154 BAIL APPL. NO. 4295 OF 2025 9 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 liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court to cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated. sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JV JUDGE