Kerala High Court
Sreenath.K vs State Of Kerala on 2 April, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BA Nos.4058 & 4019 of 2025
1
2025:KER:28116
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. 4058 OF 2025
CRIME NO.256/2025 OF Bekal Police Station, Kasargod
PETITIONER(S):
SREENATH.K
AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAN.K, MEETHAL HOUSE,
KOPPAL, UDMA PADINJAR, UDMA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD
DISTRICT., PIN - 671 319
BY ADVS.
HEMALATHA
BINU GEORGE
AVANI P.S.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031
BY ADV.:
SR PP - NOUSHAD K A
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4019/2025, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BA Nos.4058 & 4019 of 2025
2
2025:KER:28116
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. 4019 OF 2025
CRIME NO.256/2025 OF Bekal Police Station, Kasargod
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:
1 ABHILASH. K
AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN K, KOWAL HOUSE,
KOPPAL, UDMA VILLAGE, BARE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT,
PIN - 671 319
2 PRADEEP. K
AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. JANAKI, KOPPAL HOUSE, KOPPAL,
UDMA VILLAGE, KASARGOD, PIN - 671 319
3 AKSHAY KRISHNAN NAMBIAR.N
AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN.M, 8-438
EROLE, MUNDATH HOUSE, EROL, BARE, MYLATTI,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671 319
4 VIJEESH. P.B
AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN P.K, VIJEESH NIVAS,
AMBIKA NAGAR, UDMA PADINHAR.P.O, KASARAGOD
DISTRICT, PIN - 671 319
BY ADVS.
HEMALATHA
BINU GEORGE
AVANI P.S.
RESPONDENT(S)STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031
BY ADV. SRI. NOUSHAD K.A, SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4058/2025, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BA Nos.4058 & 4019 of 2025
3
2025:KER:28116
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
BA No.4058 and 4019 of 2025
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 02nd day of April, 2025
ORDER
These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. These two cases are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these two cases by a common order.
2. The petitioners are accused in Crime No.256/2025 of Bekal Police Station, Kasargod. The above cases are registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Public BA Nos.4058 & 4019 of 2025 4 2025:KER:28116 Prosecutor submitted that petitioner No.3 in BA No.4019/2025 is not an accused. The same is recorded.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 28.02.2025, in connection with the procession of Palakkunnu Bharani Festival, coming from Koppal side towards Palakkunnu Temple, due to the enmity of questioning the act of the accused in connection with a dance programme of the friend of the defacto complainant, attacked the defacto complainant with their hands on his face and head. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegation against the petitioners are not correct. The alleged incident happened in a temple BA Nos.4058 & 4019 of 2025 5 2025:KER:28116 festival. The counsel also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court, if this Court grant them bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He submitted that the injured sustained a fracture and the offence under Section 118(2) of BNS is also added. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that, no criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioners as per the report received by him from the Investigating Officer.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. A perusal of the prosecution case would show that the incident happened in connection with a temple festival. The motive for the alleged act is also silly. No criminal antecedents is also alleged against the petitioners. The submission of the Public Prosecutor that the 3 rd petitioner in BA No.4019/2025 is not an accused is BA Nos.4058 & 4019 of 2025 6 2025:KER:28116 recorded. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, the other accused can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. There can be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10.00 AM, till final report is filed.
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 BA Nos.4058 & 4019 of 2025 7 2025:KER:28116 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 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 BA Nos.4058 & 4019 of 2025 8 2025:KER:28116 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.
Considering the dictum laid down in the above decisions and considering the facts and circumstances of these cases, these Bail Applications are allowed with the following conditions:
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 BA Nos.4058 & 4019 of 2025 9 2025:KER:28116 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 petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional BA Nos.4058 & 4019 of 2025 10 2025:KER:28116 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 petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10.00 AM, till final report is filed.
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. Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the investigating officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect BA Nos.4058 & 4019 of 2025 11 2025:KER:28116 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].
9. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in 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