Kerala High Court

Ajith Robinson vs State Of Kerala on 4 April, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

BAIL APPL. Nos.2891 & 2884 OF 2025        1



                                                      2025:KER:29420
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                      PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

      FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947

                          BAIL APPL. NO. 2891 OF 2025

            CRIME NO.247/2025 OF Vizhinjam Police Station,

                                 Thiruvananthapuram

PETITIONER/S:

               ROBINSON S.
               AGED 60 YEARS
               S/O SATHYANEASN H, JESUS BHAVAN, VAVAMOOLA
               VADAKKEKARA, VENNIYUR, NELLIVILA P.O., VENGANOOR,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695523


               BY ADV M.R.SASITH


RESPONDENT/S:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
               KERALA, PIN - 682031

      2        NEETHU M.A
               AGED 28 YEARS
               D/O. G MANOHARAN, RESIDING AT KUZHIVILLA PUTHEN
               VEEDU, ARUMANOORKADA, TIRUPURAM P.O., NEYYATINKARA
               TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695525 IS IMPLEADED AS
               ADDL. R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 12/03/2025 IN
               CRL.M.A.1/2025.


               BY ADVS.
 BAIL APPL. Nos.2891 & 2884 OF 2025     2



                                                 2025:KER:29420
               SAYUJYA RADHAKRISHNAN
               K.R.RAJEEV KRISHNAN



OTHER PRESENT:

               SR PP-HRITHWIK C S,PP-G SUDHEER


       THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2884/2025, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. Nos.2891 & 2884 OF 2025        3



                                                        2025:KER:29420

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                      PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

      FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947

                          BAIL APPL. NO. 2884 OF 2025

            CRIME NO.247/2025 OF Vizhinjam Police Station,

                                 Thiruvananthapuram

PETITIONER/S:
          AJITH ROBINSON
          AGED 31 YEARS
          S/O ROBINSON, CHARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, NELLIVILA P.O.,
          VAVAMOOLA, VADAKKEKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
          695523
          BY ADV M.R.SASITH
RESPONDENT/S:
     1    STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
          KERALA, PIN - 682031

      2        NEETHU M.A ( IMPLEADED AS R2)
               VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
               ( IMPLEADED AS R2), PIN - 695521

               BY ADVS.
               SAYUJYA RADHAKRISHNAN
               K.R.RAJEEV KRISHNAN


       THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2891/2025, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. Nos.2891 & 2884 OF 2025     4



                                                       2025:KER:29420




                      P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                    --------------------------------------
                   B.A. Nos. 2884 & 2891 of 2025
                    --------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 4th day of April, 2025



                                     ORDER

These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. These bail applications

are connected and therefore, I am disposing these bail

applications by a common order.

2. The petitioners are accused in Crime No.

247/2025 of Vizhinjam Police Station. The above case is

registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable

under Sec.75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children) Act, 2015 (for short 'JJ Act') and Sec. 31 of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for

short 'DV Act').

3. The prosecution case is that, the accused

2025:KER:29420 persons with an intention to cause mental agony to the

defacto complainant and her children and to leave them, the

accused persons locked the door of the house and denied dress

and other things to them. It is also alleged that the accused

violated the orders passed by the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara in MC No. 19/2024.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the

Public Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that

even if the entire allegations are accepted, the allegations are

in connection with a matrimonial dispute. The counsel

submitted that the maximum punishment that can be imposed

for the offences alleged is only upto 3 years. The counsel

submitted that no such incident happened as alleged in the

complaint. It is also submitted that the alleged incident

happened on 07.02.2025. The FIR is registered on 08.02.2025

stating that there is violation of interim order passed by the

Magistrate Court. Subsequently, on 10.02.2025, the case

2025:KER:29420 pending before the Magistrate Court is withdrawn. Therefore,

as on today, there is no interim order in force. The counsel

appearing for the defacto complainant seriously opposed the

bail application. The counsel submitted that even if the main

MC is withdrawn subsequently, as on the date on which the

alleged incident happened, the interim order was in force.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have not

committed any offence. The counsel submitted that it is a clear

case in which the petitioners committed the alleged offence.

The defacto complainant is the wife. The defacto complainant

and her minor children suffered a lot from the petitioners.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the

petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the

allegation against the petitioners are serious. But the fact

remains that the maximum punishment that can be imposed

for the offences alleged is only upto 3 years. The counsel

appearing for the defacto complainant submitted that if there

is threat to the life of the victim, the punishment can go upto

2025:KER:29420 10 years. But, again the fact remains that this is a matrimonial

dispute between the parties. The cases are pending before the

Family Court and before the Magistrate Court. Considering the

facts and circumstances of this case, the custodial

interrogation of the petitioners are not necessary. Therefore,

the petitioners can be released on bail, after imposing

stringent conditions.

7. 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.

8. 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

2025:KER:29420 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."

9. 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.

10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above

2025:KER:29420 decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this

case, these Bail Applications are 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) 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

2025:KER:29420 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/her