BA No.4297 of 2025 1 2025:KER:28799 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. 4297 OF 2025 CRIME NO.468/2025 OF North Paravur Police Station, Ernakulam PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2: ATHUL KRISHNA K.S AGED 22 YEARS S/O.SANTHOSH K.R, KANIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANNAM P.O, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683520 BY ADV VIVEK VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT ( S )/COMPLAINANT-STATE : STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI., PIN - 682031 BY ADV. : SR PP-NOUSHAD K A THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BA No.4297 of 2025 2 2025:KER:28799 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- BA No.4297 of 2025 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 03rd day of April, 2025 O R D E R This bail application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. 2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.468/2025 of North Paravur Police Station, Ernakulam. The above case is registered against the petitioner and another alleging offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 118(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 3. The prosecution case is that, with an intention to hurt the defacto complainant, on BA No.4297 of 2025 3 2025:KER:28799 16.03.2025 at 09.30 PM, the accused 1 and 2 attacked the defacto complainant with granite stone and glass on the head, face, neck, shoulder and abdomen of the defacto complainant. As a result of which, the defacto complainant sustained a fracture on his nasal bone. There are other injuries to other parts of the body also. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant came near the temple in connection with the festival after consuming alcohol. He created problems. The devotees tried to remove him. In such situation he sustained injury. The petitioner has not committed any offence. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court, if this BA No.4297 of 2025 4 2025:KER:28799 Court grant him bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He submitted that serious injuries are sustained to the victim. But, the Public Prosecutor conceded that, as per the report received by him from the Investigating Officer, no criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioner. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the alleged incident happened in a temple premises where a festival is going on. According to the defacto complainant, he was attacked by the petitioner and another. A perusal of the wound certificate of the injured would show that there is smell of alcohol. Normally, no devotee will go near the temple premises after consuming alcohol. I don’t want to make any further opinion about the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case BA No.4297 of 2025 5 2025:KER:28799 and also considering the fact that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents, I think, the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. 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 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 BA No.4297 of 2025 6 2025:KER:28799 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 to arrest the accused.” BA No.4297 of 2025 7 2025:KER:28799 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 decisions and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following conditions: 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 solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of BA No.4297 of 2025 8 2025:KER:28799 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. 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. BA No.4297 of 2025 9 2025:KER:28799 6. 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. 7. 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]. 8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional court can cancel the bail in BA No.4297 of 2025 10 2025:KER:28799 accordance to law, even though this 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 nvj JUDGE