Kerala High Court
V Sudhakaran vs State Of Kerala on 22 April, 2025
2025:KER:32872
BAIL APPL. NO. 5202 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. 5202 OF 2025
CRIME NO.256/2025 OF Chirayinkeezhu Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 4:
1 V SUDHAKARAN
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.VELUKKUTTI, VAYALIL VEEDU, VALIYA ELA,
THOTTAVARAM, CHIRYINKIL.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695304
2 S AMBIKA
AGED 45 YEARS
W/O.VELUKKUTTI, VAYALIL VEEDU, VALIYA ELA,
THOTTAVARAM, CHIRYINKIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695304
3 PRAVEEN P
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.SUMA.S, VAYALTHITTA VEEDU, KOONTHALLOOR,
CHIRAYINKIL.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695304
BY ADVS.
AKHIL SUSEENDRAN
AISWARYA V.S.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2025:KER:32872
BAIL APPL. NO. 5202 OF 2025
2
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:32872
BAIL APPL. NO. 5202 OF 2025
3
MURALEE KRISHNA S., J.
--------------------------------------------
Bail. Appl.No. 5202 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. 2 to 4 in
Crime No.256/2025 of Chirayinkeezhu Police Station, registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 296(b),
126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').
3. The prosecution case is that, accused Nos.2 to 4
had entered the house of the de-facto complainant at around
12:30 AM on 28-02-2025 and attacked the de-facto complainant
in a dispute, which arose on account of the de-facto complainant
releasing the cows of the 1st accused and that the 1st accused
came there on a scooter, being informed of the same and hit
the de-facto complainant on the back of his head with a torch.
The further allegation is that the accused Nos.2 to 4 had hit the
2025:KER:32872
BAIL APPL. NO. 5202 OF 2025
wife and nephew of the defacto complainant with a coconut
shell. Thus, the accused allegedly committed the above
offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the overt act of beating the defacto complainant with the
torch is alleged against accused No.1 and the role attributed
against the petitioners herein are less grave in nature. They are
ready to co-operate with the investigation. Accused No.1 was
granted anticipatory bail by this Court as per the order dated
02.04.2025 in B.A.No.4278/2025.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application pointing out the injuries caused to the defacto
complainant.
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
2025:KER:32872
BAIL APPL. NO. 5202 OF 2025
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 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
2025:KER:32872
BAIL APPL. NO. 5202 OF 2025
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 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
2025:KER:32872
BAIL APPL. NO. 5202 OF 2025
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 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.
2025:KER:32872
BAIL APPL. NO. 5202 OF 2025
State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC
663].
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
