Kerala High Court
Muhammed Salim vs State Of Kerala on 30 October, 2025
Author: K. Babu
Bench: K. Babu
B.A.Nos.11984/2025 &
11935/2025 1 2025:KER:81894
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 11984 OF 2025
CRIME NO.253/2025 OF VANDANMEDU POLICE STATION, IDUKKI
PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:
MUHAMMED SALIM
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. HAMSA,
PALLIKANDI HOUSE, MAMBATTAKUNNATH, VALIYAPARAMBU,
KALUKKALLOR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679337
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH
SHRI. RALPH RETI JOHN
SHRI.VISHNU CHANDRAN
SHRI.GIRIDHAR KRISHNA KUMAR
SMT.GEETHU T.A.
SMT.MARY GREESHMA
SMT.LIZ JOHNY
SMT.KRISHNAPRIYA SREEKUMAR
SHRI.ABHIJITH P.S
SHRI.MOHAMMED FAIS M.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV M C ASHI SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.10.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..11935/2025, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.11984/2025 &
11935/2025 2 2025:KER:81894
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 11935 OF 2025
CRIME NO.253/2025 OF VANDANMEDU POLICE STATION, IDUKKI
PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED:
MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA C
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. ABDULLA,
KOLACHIYADUKKAM HOUSE, MULIYAR P.O.,
MULIYAR VILLAGE, KASARGOD, PIN - 671542
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH
SHRI. RALPH RETI JOHN
SHRI.VISHNU CHANDRAN
SHRI.GIRIDHAR KRISHNA KUMAR
SMT.GEETHU T.A.
SMT.MARY GREESHMA
SMT.LIZ JOHNY
SMT.KRISHNAPRIYA SREEKUMAR
SHRI.ABHIJITH P.S
SHRI.MOHAMMED FAIS M.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.10.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..11984/2025, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.11984/2025 &
11935/2025 3 2025:KER:81894
K.BABU, J.
------------------------------------------------------------------
B.A.Nos.11984 of 2025 & 11935 OF 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2025
COMMON ORDER
These applications are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
2. The petitioners are accused Nos. 3 and 6 in Crime No.253/2025 of Vandanmedu Police Station, Idukki. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 281, 287, 288, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 4, 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, Section 9B (1)(b) of the Indian Explosive Act and Section 132 read with Section 179 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
3. The prosecution case as narrated in Annexure A2 order reads thus:-
"On 08.03.2025, at about 11.45 am, at Ezhamukku Bhagam, Puliyanmala Kara in Kattappana Village, the accused persons were found in possession of and transporting explosive substances, namely 300 electric detonators and 199 gelatin sticks without having any valid licence, permit or B.A.Nos.11984/2025 & 11935/2025 4 2025:KER:81894 authorization as required under law. It is specifically alleged that the 1st accused, with the help of the 2nd accused, transported the above said explosive substances in a jeep bearing registration No.KL-02-E-8744, which is owned by the 2nd accused, contained in a plastic sack, without adhering to any safety standards. It is further alleged that the accused Nos.3 to 5 had delivered the aforesaid explosive substances to the 1st and 2nd accused."
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecution has not collected any material so far to establish the complicity of the petitioners in the alleged offences.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required for verifying the source of the explosive substances. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that only after the custodial interrogation of the petitioners, the actual intention of the petitioners for having stored the explosive B.A.Nos.11984/2025 & 11935/2025 5 2025:KER:81894 substances could be revealed.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, in the investigation so far conducted, there is nothing to show that, these persons have any direct role in the procurement of the explosive substances. Relying on Annexure 3 in Bail Application No.11935/2025, the learned counsel submitted that, the prosecution failed to place any material to show that the petitioners procured the explosive substances and facilitated transfer of the same to accused Nos. 1 and 2.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is in the preliminary stage. It appears from the materials placed before the court that, these explosive substances were procured for quarrying operations. The prosecution failed to place any material to show that the explosive substances were collected and transported for any other criminal activities. The petitioners are prepared to co-operate with the investigation. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required.
9. While considering the scope of jurisdiction B.A.Nos.11984/2025 & 11935/2025 6 2025:KER:81894 under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565] held thus:
"31. In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the State" are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. The relevance of these considerations was pointed out in State v. Captain Jagjit Singh [AIR 1962 SC 253 : (1962) 3 SCR 622 : (1962) 1 Cri LJ 216] , which, though, was a case under the old Section 498 which B.A.Nos.11984/2025 & 11935/2025 7 2025:KER:81894 corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code. It is of paramount consideration to remember that the freedom of the individual is as necessary for the survival of the society as it is for the egoistic purposes of the individual. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the court may think fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail."
10. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [(2011) 1 SCC 694] the Apex Court held thus:-
"113. Arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the B.A.Nos.5010 of 2021 & Connected cases 40 accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. The court must carefully examine the entire available record and particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record."
(In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2020) 5 SCC 1]) the declaration of law in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre that no condition can be imposed while granting order of anticipatory bail alone was overruled)
11. In Sushila Aggarwal, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, following the decision in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, held that while considering an application (for grant B.A.Nos.11984/2025 & 11935/2025 8 2025:KER:81894 of anticipatory bail) the Court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence (including intimidating witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice (such as leaving the country), etc.
12. Having considered the entire circumstances on the touchstone of the principles discussed above, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail.
In the result, the Bail Applications are allowed as follows:
(a) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 07.11.2025 between 10.00 AM and 11.00 AM for interrogation.
(b) The Investigating Officer is directed to release the petitioners on bail, in the event they are arrested, on their executing bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.
(c) The petitioners shall continue to appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 A.M. and 11 A.M for a period of three months.
(d) The petitioners shall continue to report before the B.A.Nos.11984/2025 & 11935/2025 9 2025:KER:81894 Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required.
(e) The petitioners shall not influence the witnesses in this case or tamper with the evidence.
(f) The petitioners shall fully co-operate with the investigation, including subjecting themselves to `deemed custody', as observed in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v.
State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565] and Sushila Aggarwal & Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. (AIR 2020 SC 831), for the purpose of discovery or identification, if any.
Sd/-
K. BABU, JUDGE SLR B.A.Nos.11984/2025 & 11935/2025 10 2025:KER:81894 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 11984/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
253/2025 OF VANDANMEDU POLICE STATION Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER COMMON ORDER DATED 10.09.2025 IN CRL.M.C NO. 547/2025 Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.04.2025 IN B.A NO. 4942/2025 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT B.A.Nos.11984/2025 & 11935/2025 11 2025:KER:81894 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 11935/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
253/2025 OF VANDANMEDU POLICE STATION Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER COMMON ORDER DATED 10.09.2025 IN CRL.M.C NO. 544/2025 Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL OBJECTION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 253/2025 OF VANDANMEDU POLICE STATION Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.04.2025 IN B.A NO. 4942/2025 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT