BAIL APPL. NO. 4423 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:30552 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4423 OF 2025 CRIME NO.95/2025 OF Ambalamedu Police Station, Ernakulam PETITIONER/S: ABHIRAM AGED 26 YEARS S/O SURESH N.C., ELLUMALAYIL HOUSE, VELOOR KARA, PUTHENCRUZ P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682308 BY ADVS. K.T.SAJU SRINATH C.V. RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER AMBALAMEDU POLICE STATION, KARIMUGAL, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682303 OTHER PRESENT: SR PP-HRITHWIK C S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 4423 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:30552 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J –------------------------------------- B.A. No.4423 of 2025 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th 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 2nd accused in crime No. 95/2025 of Ambalamedu Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Secs. 126(2), 118, 351(2), 296(b), 110 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 3. The gist of the prosecution case is that, on 23/02/2025 at about 6:30 p.m, the defacto complainant was proceeding to a bakery situated at Karimugal for purchasing BAIL APPL. NO. 4423 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:30552 milk. The accused persons were standing on the side of that road. The defacto complainant stared at the 1st accused due to some previous enmity which provoked the 1st accused and he beat on the forehead of defacto complainant using a beer bottle and intimidated him stating that he would be finished off. The 1st accused again beat on the head of defacto complainant using a beer bottle and the defacto complainant evaded it. The 2nd accused beat on the back of his head using an object. The 3rd accused kicked on his abdomen. The 4th accused twisted his right hand and slapped in his cheek and accordingly, all the accused person committed the offences in furtherance of their common intention assault the defacto complainant. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is not correct. The incident is BAIL APPL. NO. 4423 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:30552 not happened as alleged in the prosecution. The ingredients of Sec. 110 BNS is not attracted. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that there is criminal antecedents to the petitioner. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is serious. There is no serious injuries sustained to the injured. Whether the ingredients of Sec. 110 BNS is attracted is a matter to be investigated. I do not want to make any observation about the same. But, I think the petitioner can be released on bail, after imposing stringent conditions. There can be a direction to appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays at 10.00 am, till final report is filed. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4423 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:30552 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4423 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:30552 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 before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation. 2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the BAIL APPL. NO. 4423 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:30552 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 4. Petitioner shall not leave India BAIL APPL. NO. 4423 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:30552 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]. 7. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by BAIL APPL. NO. 4423 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:30552 this Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also. 8. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays at 10.00 am, till final report is filed. 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