Kerala High Court
Reshmi vs State Of Kerala on 22 April, 2025
2025:KER:32871
BAIL APPL. NO. 5108 OF 2025
1
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. 5108 OF 2025
CRIME NO.181/2025 OF Mannar Police Station, Alappuzha
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:
1 RESHMI
AGED 52 YEARS
D/O. SARASAMMA, KOTTAYILKIZHAKETHIL, ERAMATHOOR,
THRIPERUMTHURA, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, PIN - 689622
2 RENJINI
AGED 48 YEARS
D/O. SARASAMMA, KOTTAYILKIZHAKETHIL, ERAMATHOOR,
THRIPERUMTHURA, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, PIN - 689622
3 DIVYA
AGED 11 YEARS
(MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER RENJINI, SECOND
PETITIONER) D/O. RENJINI, KOTTAYILKIZHAKETHIL,
ERAMATHOOR, THRIPERUMTHURA, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA,
PIN - 689622
4 SARASAMMA
AGED 60 YEARS
MOTHER OF RESHMI, KOTTAYILKIZHAKETHIL,
ERAMATHOOR, THRIPERUMTHURA, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA,
PIN - 689622
BY ADVS.
V.PHILIP MATHEWS
ABY SKARIA
LAKSHMI S.
P.K.AJITHKUMAR
2025:KER:32871
BAIL APPL. NO. 5108 OF 2025
2
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
SRI.SANGEETH RAJ.N.R., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:32871
BAIL APPL. NO. 5108 OF 2025
3
MURALEE KRISHNA S., J.
--------------------------------------------
Bail. Appl.No. 5108 of 2025
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of April, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under S.482 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ( for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in
Crime No.181/2025 of Mannar Police Station, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3),
190, 118(1) and 115(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for
short 'BNS').
3. The prosecution case is that, on 02/03/2025 at
about 9:45 AM, from the disputed way situated near the house
of the petitioners as well as the defacto complainant, the
petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant. It is further
alleged that accused No.5 assaulted the mother of the defacto
complainant with an iron rod, resulting fracture to her hand.
Thus, the accused allegedly committed the above offences.
2025:KER:32871
BAIL APPL. NO. 5108 OF 2025
4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that there is a counter case also registered in respect of the
very same incident but with a different version. The petitioners
are falsely implicated in the crime due to the existing property
disputed in between the parties.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the
investigation of the offence is in progress.
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
2025:KER:32871
BAIL APPL. NO. 5108 OF 2025
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 abscond or disobey summons
and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the
investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a
2025:KER:32871
BAIL APPL. NO. 5108 OF 2025
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 petitioners 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 petitioners, they shall be
released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/--
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent
sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of
the arresting officer concerned.
3. The petitioners shall appear before the
2025:KER:32871
BAIL APPL. NO. 5108 OF 2025
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 or her 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.
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].
2025:KER:32871
BAIL APPL. NO. 5108 OF 2025
7. It is made clear that if any of the above conditions
are violated by the petitioners, 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
LEK
