Kerala High Court
Anu. A vs State Of Kerala on 3 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:8388
BAIL APPL. NO. 842 OF 2025
1
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. 842 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1197/2019 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, Kollam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.11303 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/S:
ANU. A
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O. ANTONY, KALLELIVAYAL PURAYIDOM,
KAIKULANGARA WEST, CUTCHERY P.O., VADDY,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691013
BY ADV RAJEE P MATHEWS
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
SRI HRITHWIK CS, SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:8388
BAIL APPL. NO. 842 OF 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A.No.842 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 03rd day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime
No.1197/2019 of Eravipuram Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioner on 21/10/2019 under Section
174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.)
3. The prosecution case is that, on 20/10/2019 in
between 6.00 pm and 7.00 pm, the niece aged 19 years of the
defacto complainant committed suicide by hanging herself on
the ceiling fan in the room. Annexure-1 is the FIR. The initial
investigation was conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police,
Eravipuram Police Station. In the investigation it has come out
that the deceased girl and the petitioner were in acquaintance
2025:KER:8388
BAIL APPL. NO. 842 OF 2025
earlier. Therefore, he was summoned and questioned earlier
and he was let off is the submission. Later, the investigation
was handed over to the Inspector of Police, Eravipuram. Upon
his investigation it has come out that the 1 st accused used to
disturb and threaten the deceased over mobile phone. Hence,
the Investigating Officer after getting legal opinion registered
the case under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC, after
deleting Section 174 of Cr.P.C. It is submitted that by the time
when the petitioner was arrayed as 1 st accused, he went abroad
in connection with job. It is also submitted that the petitioner
is now in India.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence under
Section 306 IPC is made out. The counsel also submitted that
the other accused are on bail and their investigation is over and
a split charge is submitted. The Public Prosecutor also
submitted that the final report as far as accused Nos.2 and 3 is
already submitted separately. The investigation against the
2025:KER:8388
BAIL APPL. NO. 842 OF 2025
petitioner is not completed because he was not available.
6. Admittedly the petitioner is now in India. The
allegation against the petitioner is that he instigated the
deceased to commit suicide. The abatement is defined in
Section 107 IPC. Whether the ingredients of Section 107 IPC is
there to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC is a matter to
be investigated. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I think custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be
necessary. The petitioner can be directed to appear before the
Investigating Officer so that the investigation can be completed.
7. 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 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]
2025:KER:8388
BAIL APPL. NO. 842 OF 2025
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
2025:KER:8388
BAIL APPL. NO. 842 OF 2025
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 offence, it is
not a rule that bail should be denied in every case.
10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above
decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this
case, I think bail can be granted after imposing stringent
conditions.
Therefore, 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 propose to arrest the petitioner, he
2025:KER:8388
BAIL APPL. NO. 842 OF 2025
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 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 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
2025:KER:8388
BAIL APPL. NO. 842 OF 2025
accused, or suspected, of the commission
of which he is suspected.
6. The petitioner shall surrender his passport
before the Investigating Officer at the time
of surrender.
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
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of
Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].
8. If any of the above conditions are violated
by the petitioner, 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
2025:KER:8388
BAIL APPL. NO. 842 OF 2025
Court to cancel the bail, if any of the above
conditions are violated.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
