[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Shaji Mon M P vs State Of Kerala on 23 December, 2025
B.A. No.14411 of 2025
1
2025:KER:98802
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 2ND POUSHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 14411 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1096/2025 OF Kuttipuram Police Station, Malappuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 26.11.2025 IN
CRL.M.C. NO.1316 OF 2025 OF THE COURT OF SESSION, MANJERI
DIVISION
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2:
SHAJI MON M P
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY M P, MULLAPPATT HOUSE,
CHERIYAPARAPPOOR, TRIPRANGODE POST, TIRUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676108
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SRI.M.C ASHI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.14411 of 2025
2
2025:KER:98802
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ( for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner herein is the 2nd accused in Crime
No.1096/2025 of Kuttipuram Police Station, Malapuram, registered
for the offences punishable under Section 305(e) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'), Sections 20 and 23 of the
Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of
Sand Act, 2001, and Section 132 r/w 179 of the Motor Vehicles
Act.
3. The prosecution case discernible from Annexure A2 order
is as follows:
On 12.11.2025, at about 3.20 A.M., at Rangatoor, the
accused No.1 was found transporting river sand without permit in
a Lorry bearing Registration No.KL-45B/3744 from Thirunavaya
side to Kuttippuram side. When the defacto complainant signaled
to stop the vehicle, accused No.1 did not stop the vehicle, the
defacto complainant followed him, and arrested him, and in
furtherance of the common intention of the accused persons to
commit the offence, accused No.2 provided escort to the lorry in a
car bearing Registration No. KL-07-CK/0493. Thus, the accused
2025:KER:98802
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,
accused No.1 was already granted regular bail by this Court as per
order dated 01.12.2025 in B.A. No.14063 of 2025. The petitioner
is innocent of the offences alleged, and he is ready to cooperate
with the investigation.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
petitioner is having two other criminal antecedents of similar
nature and hence the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the bail
application as per Annexure A2 order.
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 in as much 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. The Apex Court in Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh
2025:KER:98802
[2021 (5) KHC 353] held as under:
"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."
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the instant
case in the light of the principles regarding bail as noted in the
above-mentioned judgments, this Bail Application is allowed with
the following directions:
1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo
interrogation.
2025:KER:98802
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 cooperate 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 the investigating 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.
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
2025:KER:98802
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 is at
liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court for
cancellation of bail, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S.
JUDGE
DM
2025:KER:98802
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 14411 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1096 OF
2025 OF KUTTIPURAM POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2025
IN CRL M.C NO. 1316 OF 2025 PASSED BY
THE SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI
