Kerala High Court

Sajeev Kumar D vs State Of Kerala on 22 April, 2025

BAIL APPL. NO. 5245 OF 2025        1             2025:KER:32864

             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. 5245 OF 2025

        CRIME NO.331/2025 OF Vilappilssala Police Station,

                        Thiruvananthapuram


PETITIONERS/1ST AND 2ND ACCUSED:

    1      SAJEEV KUMAR D
           AGED 45 YEARS
           S/O DIVAKARAN D, RESIDING AT ANASWARA BHAVAN,
           MUNDONCHIRA, PLAVILAKONAM, PEYAD, MOONGODU P.O,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695573.

    2      SHEEJA S
           AGED 39 YEARS
           W/O SAJEEV KUMAR, RESIDING AT ANASWARA BHAVAN,
           MUNDANCHIRA, PLAVILAKONAM, PEYAD, MOONGODU P.O,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695573.


           BY ADVS.
           ASWIN V. NAIR
           KARTHIK J SEKHAR




RESPONDENTS/STATE AND THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

    1      STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
           KERALA, PIN - 682031.

    2      THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
           VILAPPILSALA POLICE STATION, VILAPPILSALA P.O,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695573.

    3      SHAJI S, S/O SURENDRAN S
 BAIL APPL. NO. 5245 OF 2025         2                 2025:KER:32864

            AGED 42 YEARS
            CHAUKODE, MUNDANCHIRA, MEKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, PEYAD,
            MOONGODU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695573.

    4       ANITHA, W/O SHAJI S
            AGED 42 YEARS
            CHAUKODE, MUNDANCHIRA, MEKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, PEYAD,
            MOONGODU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695573.



OTHER PRESENT:

            Sri.Renjit George, Sr.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. 5245 OF 2025       3             2025:KER:32864




                              ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ( for short 'BNSS').

2. Petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime

No.331 of 2025 of Vilappilsala Police Station, registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1),

296(b) and 3(5) of the of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short

'BNS') and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection

of children) Act, 2015.

3. The prosecution case is that, on 03.04.2025 at 19.30

hours, from the disputed way leading to the house of the defacto

complainant as well as the accused, the accused caused injury to

the defacto complainant by pulling down a gate on her leg and

also pressing her neck. It is further alleged that accused No.1

slapped on the face of the husband of the defacto complainant and

also assaulted the minor daughter of the defacto complainant.

Thus, the accused allegedly committed the above offences.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the BAIL APPL. NO. 5245 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:32864

learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

there is existing civil dispute between the parties and the 1 st

petitioner had already filed a civil suit before the Munsiff Court,

Thiruvananthapuram and it is as a counter blast, a false case is

foisted against the petitioners.

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 Uttar

Pradesh and Another [2021 (5) KHC 353] considered the BAIL APPL. NO. 5245 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:32864

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 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 offences, it is not BAIL APPL. NO. 5245 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:32864

a rule that bail should be denied in every case.

11. 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, each of them 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 5245 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:32864

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].

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

DSV/-

BAIL APPL. NO. 5245 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:32864

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 5245/2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO:

331/2025 REGISTERED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 03/04/2025 IN O.S. NO: 264/2025 LEARNED ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT IV (RCC), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.