Kerala High Court
Sahadevan vs State Of Kerala on 22 April, 2025
B. A. No. 5254 of 2025
-1-
2025:KER:32928
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. 5254 OF 2025
CRIME NO.393/2025 OF CHIRAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/S:
SAHADEVAN
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O PADMANABHAN, AKKARAVILA (H),
MUDAPURAM,KIZHUVILAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695104
BY ADVS.
JERRY MATHEW
DEVIKA K.R.
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV. 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:
B. A. No. 5254 of 2025
-2-
2025:KER:32928
ORDER
Dated this the 22nd day of April, 2025
This Bail Application is filed under S.482 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No. 393 of
2025 of Chirayinkil Police Station, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 223(a), 351(2), 118(1), 115(2),
75(1)(i), 296(b), 79, 76 and 74 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (for short 'BNS').
3. The prosecution case is that, on 18.03.2025 at about
08:00 a.m., while the de facto complainant and her daughter
went to the property of her husband situated at Millumukku,
Mudapuram, the accused had threatened her demanding to
leave the property and by uttering abusive words pushed her
with an iron rod and by pulling her dress and touching her chest
outraged her modesty. Thus, the accused allegedly committed
the above offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is the brother-in-law of the de facto complainant
2025:KER:32928
and there is an existing property dispute between the parties. It
is due to that grudge a false case is foisted against the
petitioner.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the de
facto complainant has suffered minor injuries in the incident and
investigation of the offence is not completed.
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 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
2025:KER:32928
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."
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
2025:KER:32928
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 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.
2025:KER:32928
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].
7. 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
Eb
