Kerala High Court
Lijin Simon vs State Of Kerala on 13 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:12064
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 24TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1592 OF 2025
CRIME NO.244/2025 OF Pathanamthitta Police Station,
Pathanamthitta
PETITIONER/S:
1 LIJIN SIMON
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O K C SIMON, PARUVAPLAKKAL, PERINGAMALA
CHURULICODE P O., PARUVAPLAKKAL. PATHANAMTHITTA
KERALA., PIN - 689668
2 ADITHYAN S ACHU
AGED 20 YEARS
S/O ANIL KUMAR A, ANIL BHAVANAM, KALANJOOR P O
CHIRAVAYAL, KALANJOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN -
689694
3 ARJUN S ACHU
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O ANIL KUMAR A, ANIL BHAVANAM, KALANJOOR P O,
CHIRAVAYAL, KALANJOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN -
689694
4 SAHIL S
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O SHAMEERKHAN, POOTHAKARA, THADATHIL, MEMANNADY,
KADAMPANADU, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA,, PIN - 691530
5 AMRUTHESH GOPAN P R
AGED 19 YEARS
S/O P K GOPAKUMAR, PUTHENVILAYIL, VEEDU,
THATTAYIL, PANDALAM THEKKEKARA, PATHANAMTHITTA,
KERALA,, PIN - 691525
2025:KER:12064
BAIL APPL. NO.1592 OF 2025
2
BY ADV T.P.PRADEEP
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA,
PIN - 689645
BY ADV.
HRITHWIK.C.S, SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:12064
BAIL APPL. NO.1592 OF 2025
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.1592 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.244/2025 of Pathanamthitta Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(1), 115(2),118(1), 118(2) AND 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
3. The prosecution case is that, after a scuffle between SFI workers and KSU workers, and when the defacto complainant, who is the General Secretary of KSU, came to the campus of Catholicate College, Pathanamthitta, on 29.01.2025 at 03:15pm., to admit the KSU workers in the hospital, he was beaten and kicked by the accused and 1 st accused beat him on the head with a helmet and he sustained a fracture at nasal bone. Hence, it is alleged that the accused 2025:KER:12064 BAIL APPL. NO.1592 OF 2025 4 committed the offence.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the allegations against the petitioners are not correct. It is a case and counter case. The counter case is registered as Crime No.245/2025 of Pathanamathitta. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions, if this Court grants them bail. The counsel submitted that they are students.
6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He submitted that the injured sustained a nasal bone fracture.
7. This Court considered the contention of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegations against the petitioners are very serious. But, it is a case and counter case. Two versions are there about this incident. Which version is correct cannot be decided in a bail application. Considering the facts and 2025:KER:12064 BAIL APPL. NO.1592 OF 2025 5 circumstances of the case, I think, the petitioners can be granted bail after imposing 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 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 2025:KER:12064 BAIL APPL. NO.1592 OF 2025 6 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.
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.
2025:KER:12064 BAIL APPL. NO.1592 OF 2025 7
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) 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 Court.
2025:KER:12064 BAIL APPL. NO.1592 OF 2025 8
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. 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].
7. 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 the jurisdictional Court 2025:KER:12064 BAIL APPL. NO.1592 OF 2025 9 to cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE SSG