B.A.No.5094 of 2025 1 2025:KER:31854 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 5094 OF 2025 CRIME NO.256/2025 OF Feroke Police Station, Kozhikode PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: 1 MARIYATH AGED 34 YEARS CHAPPANGATHOTTATHIL, KAITHAVALAPU, BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673015 2 PRASEETHA.T AGED 44 YEARS ATTAMTHARA, IDACHIRA, KADALUNDI (PO), KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673302 3 JALEEL.K.T AGED 38 YEARS KANISAMKANDI PARAMBIL, CHALIYAM P.O. KADALUNDI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673301 BY ADVS. ARUN KRISHNA DHAN ARJUN SREEDHAR T.K.SANDEEP ALEX ABRAHAM HARIKRISHNAN P.B. AMJITH C.M. SREELAKSHMI SHIBU B.A.No.5094 of 2025 2 2025:KER:31854 RESPONDENT(S): STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV. SRI. G SUDHEER, PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.5094 of 2025 3 2025:KER:31854 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- B.A.No.5094 of 2025 ------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April, 2025 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.256/2025 of Feroke Police Station, Kozhikode. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2) & 75(1)(i) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'). 3. The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant, who is a woman staff of Snehaalayam (old age home) at Kadalundi kadavu, on a day between 15/2/2025 and 28/2/2025, the 1st accused wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, caught hold on her neck using a shawl and beat on her cheeks. The 2nd accused also beat the defacto complainant with hand. The 3rd accused grabbed her breast. B.A.No.5094 of 2025 4 2025:KER:31854 Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said offences. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is a false case foisted against the petitioners. It is submitted that the defacto complainant while working as a staff of Snehalayam old age home had mis-behaved and committed atrocities against the inmates. There was a complaint against the defacto complainant. Accordingly, the defacto complainant was expelled from the institution on 27.02.2025, but taking a lenient view considering her future job prospectus, she was advised to voluntarily tender resignation, is the submission. Annexure-2 is the letter issued by the defacto complainant. It is further submitted that the defacto complainant is a habitual litigant and many such false complaints of similar nature were filed on earlier occasions also. Annexure-4 FIR is produced to prove the same. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant them bail. B.A.No.5094 of 2025 5 2025:KER:31854 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. This Court also perused Annexures-2 to 4. I do not want to make any further opinion about the merit of the case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think this bail application can be allowed on 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 paragraph of the B.A.No.5094 of 2025 6 2025:KER:31854 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.” 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. B.A.No.5094 of 2025 7 2025:KER:31854 11. 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 B.A.No.5094 of 2025 8 2025:KER:31854 petitioners 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 them 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. 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 B.A.No.5094 of 2025 9 2025:KER:31854 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 petitioners even while the petitioners are 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 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 B.A.No.5094 of 2025 10 2025:KER:31854 the jurisdictional Court to cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE DM