Rahul. B vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 7842 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 7842 Ker
Judgement Date : 9 April, 2025

Kerala High Court

Rahul. B vs State Of Kerala on 9 April, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                                        2025:KER:30958

             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. 4890 OF 2025

  CRIME NO.155/2025 OF Pallithottam Police Station, Kollam

PETITIONER/S:

         RAHUL. B,
         AGED 22 YEARS
         S/O. BABY MATHEW, SNEHATHEERAM NAGAR-154,
         PALLITHOTTAM, KOLLAM., PIN - 691006


         BY ADVS.
         SANAL C.S
         VISHAK K.V.



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:30958
BAIL APPL. NO.4890 OF 2025

                                 2
                      P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                    --------------------------------
                       B.A.No.4890 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. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.155/2025

of Pallithottam Police Station. The above case is registered

against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under

Section 123 of of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

and Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act (for short JJ Act).

3. The prosecution case is that; on 02.02.2025,

the petitioner supplied liquor to the minor friend of the

defacto complainant with the knowledge that the same would

cause harm to her health and thus, the defacto complainant

and her friend, who are minors, happened to consume the

liquor. Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed the 2025:KER:30958 BAIL APPL. NO.4890 OF 2025

above said offences.

4. Heard.

5. It is true that the allegation against the

petitioner is serious. But, from the facts, it is not clear that

whether Section 123 of the BNS is attracted in this case. The

maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offence

under Section 77 of JJ Act is only seven years. Considering the

facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the

fact that the petitioner is only aged 22 years, I think, the

petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent

conditions. There can be a direction to the petitioner to

appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at

10:00 am., till final report is filed.

6. 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 2025:KER:30958 BAIL APPL. NO.4890 OF 2025

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.

7. 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 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 2025:KER:30958 BAIL APPL. NO.4890 OF 2025

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."

8. 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 petitioner 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 petitioner, he

shall be released on bail on executing a 2025:KER:30958 BAIL APPL. NO.4890 OF 2025

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.