Kerala High Court

Arun Kumar K vs State Of Kerala on 3 February, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                              2025:KER:8426
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

 MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 14TH MAGHA, 1946

                  BAIL APPL. NO. 778 OF 2025

        CRIME NO.41/2025 OF CANTONMENT POLICE STATION,

                      THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:

    1      ARUN KUMAR K
           AGED 46 YEARS, CONSULTING EDITOR,
           REPORTER BROADCASTING COMPANY PVT LTD,
           REPORTER STUDIO COMPLEX, HMT COLONY,
           NORTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, S/O
           K.KOCHUKRISHNA PILLAI, KALANGUMKARA (H),
           MARTHANDUMKARA P.O,
           YEROOR, ANCHAL, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 312.

    2      SHABAS AHAMMED S
           AGED 24 YEARS, SUB EDITOR-DIGITAL, REPORTER
           BROADCASTING COMPANY PVT LTD, REPORTER STUDIO
           COMPLEX, HMT COLONY,NORTH KALAMASSERY,
           ERNAKULAM, S/O SHAMSUDHEEN, ATHIKKAL (H),
           MANNUR P.O, PALAKKAD,
           PIN - 678 642.

           BY ADVS.
           P.K.VARGHESE
           M.T.SAMEER
           DHANESH V.MADHAVAN
           JERRY MATHEW
           REGHU SREEDHARAN
           DEVIKA K.R.
           P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)(K/421/1984)
                                                2025:KER:8426
B.A No.778 of 2025
                               2
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

     1      STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.

             BY ADV
             P NARAYANAN, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER


         THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                   2025:KER:8426
B.A No.778 of 2025
                                  3


                    P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                 --------------------------------
                    B.A.No.778 of 2025
                  -------------------------------
          Dated this the 3rd day of February 2025


                               ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime

No.41 of 2025 of Cantonment Police Station,

Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is registered

against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under

Sections 11(i) and 12 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act (for short 'POCSO Act') and Section

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

'BNS').

3. The 1st petitioner is the consulting editor

and the 2nd petitioner is the sub editor-digital of a

malayalam news channel known by the name as 2025:KER:8426

'Reporter'.

4. The prosecution case is that on

06.01.2025 during the television coverage of Kerala State

School Youth Festival, which was held in

Thiruvananthapuram, the Reporter Channel aired a

teleskit portraying the participants of the Oppana

competition, wherein the 2nd petitioner acted as a

spectator, who was having a conversation with one of the

teammates, who was dressed up as the 'Manavatti' of the

Oppana Team. It is also stated that the specific allegation

against the 1st petitioner is that on 08.01.2025, he was

having a conversation with other reporters in the news

programme and he made remarks about the 'Manavatti'

and the reporter, who was portrayed as a spectator. He

said that it was better for two of them to not see each

other again.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the

Public Prosecutor.

2025:KER:8426

5. Adv.R.Krishnaraj filed an impleading

petition stating that he also filed a complaint for the same

set of facts.

6. Public Prosecutor submitted that no crime

is registered based on the complaint filed by the client of

Adv.Krishnaraj.

7. This Court asked Adv.Krishnaraj about his

authority to implead in a bail application filed by an

accused as a third person. The counsel submitted that he

wants to submit the facts before this Court. I am of the

prima facie opinion that, a third person has no right to

implead in a bail application. But, even then this Court

heard Adv. Krishnaraj in detail.

8. Public Prosecutor submitted that there is

no intention to arrest the petitioners. Therefore, Section

35(3) of BNSS notice alone is issued.

9. If that is the case, there is no

apprehension of arrest to the petitioners. Section 35(3) of 2025:KER:8426

BNSS says that the police officer shall, in all cases where

the arrest of a person is not required under sub-section

(1) issue a notice directing the person against whom a

reasonable complaint has been made, or credible

information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion

exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to

appear before him or at such other place as may be

specified in the notice. The Senior Counsel

Adv.Vijayabhanu, appearing for the petitioner takes me

through Section 35(5) of BNSS. It says that where such

person complies and continues to comply with the notice,

he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred

to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the

police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be

arrested. Hence it is submitted that, there is

apprehension of arrest.

10. Adv.Krishna Raj takes me through the

conversation between the petitioners and also with the 2025:KER:8426

victim. I am of the prima facie opinion that these

conversation may not amounts to any criminal offence.

But, may be inappropriate questions, which ought to have

been avoided by the petitioners, especially when they are

senior reporters of a channel. But, considering the facts

and circumstances of the case, I think the bail can be

granted to the petitioners. I make it clear that the

observations in this order is only for the purpose of

considering this bail application and investigating officer

is free to investigate the matter untrammeled by any

observations in this order.

11. Moreover, 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 [2019 (16) SCALE 870],

after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that,

the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same

inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the 2025:KER:8426

exception so as to ensure that the accused has the

opportunity of securing fair trial.

12. 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 2025:KER:8426

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."

13. 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 offence, it is not a rule that bail should be

denied in every case.

Considering the dictum laid down in the above

decision and considering the facts and circumstances of

this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the

following directions:

2025:KER:8426

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 propose to arrest

the petitioners, they shall be released

on bail on executing a bond for a sum

of 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 2025:KER:8426

indirectly make any inducement, threat

or promise to any person acquainted

with the facts of the case so as to

dissuade 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, of the

commission of which they are

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 2025:KER:8426

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. If any of the above conditions are

violated by the petitioners, the

jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in

accordance to law, even though the bail

is granted by this Court. The

prosecution and the victim are at liberty

to approach the jurisdictional Court to

cancel the bail, if any of the above

conditions are violated.

Sd/-