Kerala High Court
A.K. Rajeesh vs State Of Kerala on 24 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 6539 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:79535
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 6539 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2025 IN Crl.A NO.96 OF 2025
OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT / RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY, THALASSERY
PETITIONERS:
1 A.K. RAJEESH,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O RAMAKRISHNAN, KRISHNALAYAM (H),
ANCHARAKKANDY, MUZHAPPALA,KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670611
2 SINIL. I,
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. PAVITHRAN, PULARI(H), ANCHARAKKANDY,
MUZHAPPALA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670611
3 SOORAJ. K.K,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O KUNHAMBU, MAVILAKKANDY HOUSE, ANCHAARAKKANDY
AMSOM, MAMBA DESOM, MUZHAPPALA, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670611
4 JOSHY. K,
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O PANKAJAKSHAN, KUNIYIL HOUSE, ANCHARAKKANDY
AMSOM, MAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670611
5 SHINIL. C.K,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O PURUSHOTHAMAN, NEAR KAITHAPRAM MADAPPURA,
ANCHARAKKANDY AMSOM, MUZHAPPALA, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670611
CRL.MC NO. 6539 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:79535
6 SAJIN,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O SUKUMARAN, VANNATHIKKANDY HOUSE,
ANCHARAKKANDY AMSOM, MUZHAPPALA,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670611
BY ADVS.
SRI.DEEPAK RAJ
SMT.ASWATHY K.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 K. N. JERIN RAJ,
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O JAYARAJAN, JERIN NIVAS,
ANCHARAKKANDY AMSOM, MAMBA, PUTHUKUDICHAL,
KANNUR DISTRICT
3 K. N. JIBIN RAJ
AGED 38 YEARS, S/O JAYARAJAN, JERIN NIVAS,
ANCHARAKKANDY AMSOM, MAMBA, PUTHUKUDICAL, KANNUR
DISTRICT *IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS
NO:2 AND 3 RESPECTIVELY AS PER ORDER DATED
22.08.2025 IN CRL MA 1/2025 IN CRL MC 6539/2025.
BY ADVS. SRI.M.B.SANDEEP
SMT.K.P.SREEJA
SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK, SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 6539 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:79535
ORDER
Dated this the 24th day of October, 2025 Aggrieved by Annexure II order passed by the Court of Session, Thalassery ('Appellate Court', in short) suspending the petitioners' sentence, on condition that they deposit the entire fine amount, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS', in short).
2. The petitioners were the accused 1 to 4, 6 and 7 in S.C.No.566/2013 on the file of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Thalassery ('Trial Court', in short) which arises out of Crime No.130/2012 registered by the Chakkarakkal Police Station, as against the accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. CRL.MC NO. 6539 OF 2025 4
2025:KER:79535
3. By Annexure I judgment, the Trial Court convicted the accused persons for all the offences and directed them to undergo sentence of imprisonment and also pay fine for each of the offences. Assailing Annexure I judgment, the petitioners filed Crl.Appeal No.96/2025 and Crl.M.P.No.2099/2025, to suspend the sentence of imprisonment and fine. By Annexure II order, the Appellate Court has suspended the sentence, subject to the condition that the petitioners deposit the entire fine amount. Annexure II order is onerous, unjustifiable and irrational. Hence, the Crl.M.C.
4. Heard: the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 (injured).
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the condition in Annexure II order is unreasonable and unsustainable in law. He places reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Guddan @ Roop Narayan v. State of Rajasthan [2023(1) KHC 418] and CRL.MC NO. 6539 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:79535 Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Sirpal [2024 INSC 819] in support of his submissions. He contends that the impugned direction frustrates the petitioners' statutory right to get the sentence suspended and be enlarged on bail because the petitioners are not in a position to remit the entire fine amount. Such practice has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited decisions. Moreover, at the admission stage, this Court had directed the petitioners to remit Rs.15,000/- each within two weeks, which they have complied. Therefore, the Crl.M.C may be allowed.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 submits that there is not illegality or error in Annexure II order.
7. While considering a matter of an identical nature, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Guddan @ Roop Narayan's case (supra) has held as follows:
"9. This Court, time and time again has held that jail is the exception and grant of bail is the rule, and in such a scenario, the conditions imposed on bail must not be unreasonable.CRL.MC NO. 6539 OF 2025 6
2025:KER:79535
10. In the case of Munish Bhasin and Others Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Another (2009) 4 SCC 45::2009ICO 2162, the Appellant had approached the Supreme Court in Appeal against an order of the High Court that had imposed onerous conditions for grant of Anticipatory Bail in a Domestic Violence case. This Hon'ble Court in its reasoning held that harsh and excessive conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail, the relevant observations of this Court are reproduced hereunder:
"10. It is well settled that while exercising discretion to release an accused under S.438 of the Code neither the High Court nor the Sessions Court would be justified in imposing freakish conditions. There is no manner of doubt that the court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case can impose necessary, just and efficacious conditions while enlarging an accused on bail under S.438 of the Code. However, the accused cannot be subjected to any irrelevant condition at all.
12. While imposing conditions on an accused who approaches the court under S.438 of the Code, the court should be extremely chary in imposing conditions and should not transgress its jurisdiction or power by imposing the conditions which are not called for at all. There is no manner of doubt that the conditions to be imposed under S.438 of the Code cannot be harsh, onerous or excessive so as to frustrate the very object of grant of anticipatory bail under S.438 of the Code.""
xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx "13. In the present case, the Appellant has been granted bail by the High Court. However, while granting bail, the High Court has imposed the excessive conditions of a deposit of fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with a surety of another Rs.1,00,000/- and two further bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- each.
14. We are unable to appreciate the excessive conditions of bail imposed by the High Court. The fact that bail has been granted to the Appellant herein is proof enough to show that he is not to be languishing in jail during the pendency of the case.
15. While bail has been granted to the Appellant, the excessive conditions imposed have, in - fact, in practical manifestation, acted as a refusal to the grant of bail. If the Appellant had paid the required amount, it would have been a different matter. However, the fact that the Appellant was not able to pay the amount, and in default thereof is still languishing in jail, is sufficient indication that he was not able to make up the amount.
16. As has been stated in the Sandeep Jain case (supra), the conditions of bail cannot be so onerous that their existence itself tantamounts to refusal of bail. In the present case, however, the excessive conditions herein have precisely become that, an antithesis to the grant of bail."CRL.MC NO. 6539 OF 2025 7
2025:KER:79535
8. In light of the emphatic declaration of law in the afore-cited decision and well settled principles that onerous conditions shall not be imposed for the purpose of suspending the sentence/enlarging an accused on bail, I hold that the impugned condition in Annexure II order is onerous warranting interference by this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS.
Resultantly, this Crl.M.C is allowed, by setting aside the impugned condition in Annexure II order. The said condition shall stand modified by confirming the interim order dated 23.07.2025 passed by this Court, directing the petitioners to deposit Rs.15,000/- each within two weeks from the date of the order, which the petitioners have complied with. The petitioners shall comply with the other conditions in the order. Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE NAB CRL.MC NO. 6539 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:79535 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6539/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE I A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 22.03.2025 IN SC NO. 566/2013 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY ANNEXURE II A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2025 IN CRL. M.P NO. 2099/2025 IN CRL. A NO.
96/2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT