Kerala High Court
Ajmal Khan A.F vs State Of Kerala on 22 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 2ND VAISAKHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 4648 OF 2025
CRIME NO.307/2025 OF NEMOM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/S:
AJMAL KHAN A.F.,
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O AYOOB KHAN, AJMAL MANZIL, ALACHALKONAM,
VAZHICHAL P.O., TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695125
BY ADVS.
C.Y.VINOD KUMAR
M.BUSHRA HARIS
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SANGEETH RAJ.N.R., P.P.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl.No.4648 of 2025
2
2025:KER:32874
MURALEE KRISHNA, J.
...........................................
Bail Appl.No.4648 of 2025
............................................................
Dated this the 22nd day of April, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner herein is the 3 rd accused in Crime
No.307 of 2025 of Nemom Police Station, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 303, 304 and 3(5) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').
3. The prosecution case is that, on 16.12.2024 at
about 12 noon, from Nemom Catholic Syrian Bank, in
furtherance of common intention of all the accused, accused
No.1 robbed a sum of Rs.3,88,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs
Eighty Eight Thousand) from the defacto complainant. The 1 st
accused attempted to escape in the autorickshaw of the
petitioner herein and when prevented, the petitioner ran
away from the spot. Thus, the petitioner allegedly committed
the above offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
2025:KER:32874
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is an auto driver and he was unaware
about the intention of accused Nos.1 and 2, when they
traveled in his autorickshaw. The petitioner brought the
defacto complainant into the police station for lodging the
complaint after the incident. He is ready to co-operate with
the investigation.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the
petitioner is also having active involvement in the commission
of the offence.
7. 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
[(2020) 13 SCC 791] after considering the earlier
judgments on the point, 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]
2025:KER:32874
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 abscond
or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout
cooperated with the investigation we fail to
2025:KER:32874
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 offences,
it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case.
10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above
decisions 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
proposes to arrest the petitioner, he shall be
released on bail on executing a bond for
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 petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when
required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the
investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise to any
2025:KER:32874
person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him or her from disclosing such facts to
the Court or to any police officer.
4. Petitioner shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar
to the offence of which he is accused or 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
petitioner even while the petitioner is 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].
It is made clear that if any of the above conditions are
violated by the petitioner, the prosecution and the victim are
at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court for cancellation
of bail in accordance with law.
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S.,
JUDGE
Dxy
2025:KER:32874
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 4648/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.307/25 OF
NEMOM POLICE STATION
