Kerala High Court
Shihabudheen vs State Of Kerala on 9 April, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:30863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 4699 OF 2025
CRIME NO.183/2025 OF Edakkara Police Station, Malappuram
PETITIONER/S:
1 SHIHABUDHEEN
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O KHALID, ERDAN (H), CHUNGATHARA P.O, MALAPPURAM
DISRICT,, PIN - 679334
2 ANAS A
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O ABDUL NAZAR, ADHIKARATH (H), MANIMOOLI P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679333
3 SHARAFUDHEEN K. U
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O UMMAR, KARALIKKADAN (H), MANIMOOLI P.O.,
RANDAMPADAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679333
4 ANILKUMAR N
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O APPUKKUTTAN, NECHIKKATTIL (H), CHUNGATHARA
P.O., KOTTEPPADAM, MALAPPURAM DISRICT, PIN -
679334
5 JIJIN P. N
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O NARAYANAN, PANAMKAVIL (H), ERUMAMUNDA P.O.,
CHEMBAKOLIL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679334
6 MUHAMMED AJMAL ANZAR
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O ABOOBACKER, VELLAMKULATH (H), CHUNGATHARA P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISRICT, PIN - 679334
2025:KER:30863
BAIL APPL. NO.4699 OF 2025
2
7 SADIKKALI
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O ABOOBACKER, THORAN(H), VELLARAMKUNNU,
CHUNGATHARA P.O, MALAPPURAM DISRICT, PIN - 679334
8 BALAKRISHNAN C
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O GOPALAN, CHERIYIL (H), CHUNGATHARA P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISRICT, PIN - 679334
BY ADVS.
K.S.ARUN KUMAR
AMRUTHA P S
VIJAY SANKAR V.H.
AMRUTHA P.S.
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
SR PP-NOUSHAD K A
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:30863
BAIL APPL. NO.4699 OF 2025
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.4699 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 09th day of April, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
2. Petitioners are accused in Crime No.183/2025
of Edakkara Police Station. The above case is registered
against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under
Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 132, 121(1) and 190 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
3. The prosecution case is that; on 25.02.2025,
the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly
and attacked the police party. Hence, it is alleged that the
accused 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
2025:KER:30863
BAIL APPL. NO.4699 OF 2025
is submitted that there was some dispute in connection with
no-confidence motion moved at Chungathara Grama
Panchayath. Petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions,
if this Court grants him bail.
6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. The only-bailable
offence alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 132
& 121(1) of the BNS. The maximum punishment that can be
imposed for the offences alleged are below seven years.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think,
the petitioners can be released on 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
2025:KER:30863
BAIL APPL. NO.4699 OF 2025
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 has7. 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. 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 bec7. 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.omes 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
2025:KER:30863
BAIL APPL. NO.4699 OF 2025
distinction must be made between the existence of the
power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. 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. (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:
2025:KER:30863
BAIL APPL. NO.4699 OF 2025
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 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
2025:KER:30863
BAIL APPL. NO.4699 OF 2025
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.
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. The observations and findings in this
order is only for the purpose of deciding this
2025:KER:30863
BAIL APPL. NO.4699 OF 2025
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. 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
to cancel the bail, if any of the above
conditions are violated.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE
SSG
