Kerala High Court
Rahul Babu vs State Of Kerala on 22 April, 2025
2025:KER:32887
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. 5183 OF 2025
CRIME NO.89/2025 OF MARAYAMUTTAM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
RAHUL BABU
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O. BABU, LEKSHAM VEEDU, MANALUVILA, MARAYAMUTTOM
P.O., PERUMKADAVILA, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695121
BY ADVS.
G.SUDHEER
R.HARIKRISHNAN (H-308)
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.RENJITH 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. 5183 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:32887
MURALEE KRISHNA S.
---------------------------------------------
B.A. No.5183 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 sole accused in Crime
No.89/2025 of Marayamuttam Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) & 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and 31(1) of Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 18.01.2025, at about
10.30 hours, from their house, the petitioner, who is the
husband of the defacto complainant assaulted the defacto
complainant and caused injury to her by using a chopper. Thus,
the accused allegedly committed the above offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
2025:KER:32887
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that a false case is foisted against the petitioner due to some
trivial family issues. The petitioner is ready to cooperate with
the investigation.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that, it is in
violation of a protection order granted by the learned
Magistrate in a petition filed by the defacto complainant under
the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, the petitioner committed the offence and if this Court
inclines to grant anticipatory bail, strict conditions may be
incorporated so as to protect the interest of 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 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
2025:KER:32887
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 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
2025:KER:32887
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 not enter the house
premises of the defacto complainant till the
completion of investigation of the above crime,
2025:KER:32887
without obtaining prior permission of the
Jurisdictional Court.
4. 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
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.
5. Petitioner shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
6. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar
to the offence of which he is accused or suspected.
7. 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
2025:KER:32887
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and
another [2020 (1) KHC 663].
8. 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
MSA
2025:KER:32887
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 5183/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A 1 COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.
089/2025 OF THE MARAYAMUTTOM POLICE
STATION PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT III
Annexure A 2 COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C. NO.
227/2025 DATED 20.3.2025 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IV
Annexure A 3 MARAYAMUTTOM POLICE EFFECTED RECOVERY
ON 19.1.2025 ITSELF AND THE RECOVERY
MAHAZER
