Kerala High Court
Ajeesh P vs State Of Kerala on 3 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 909 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:8352
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. 909 OF 2025
CRIME NO.34/2025 OF Pulinkunnu Police Station, Alappuzha
PETITIONER/S:
AJEESH P
AGED 40 YEARS
PUTHANKALAM, KAINAKIRY NORTH, ALAPPUZHA, PIN -
688501
BY ADV B.PRAMOD
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PULINKUNNU POLICE STATION, PULINKUNNU P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688504
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:
BAIL APPL. NO. 909 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:8352
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A. No. 909 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. The petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime No.
34/2025 of Pulinkunnu Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable
under Secs. 190, 296 (b), 351(2), 118(1) and 109 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').
3. The prosecution case is that around 26 ex-
service men boarded a houseboat for a cruise in the backwaters
of Alappuzha. The guests had questioned the non-functioning of
air conditioning and public addressing system in the boat. It is
alleged that the accused abused the defacto complainant and
2025:KER:8352
others and attacked them. Hence, it is alleged that the accused
committed the offences.
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, there is no specific
overtact attributed to the petitioner, who is the 4 th accused. The
counsel submitted that the petitioner is a cardiac patient and
the counsel takes me through Annexure-A2 medical certificate,
which would show that he undergone certain procedures in
connection with his cardiac problem. The Public Prosecutor
seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor
submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is serious.
The 1st accused contacted the petitioner and as per the
instruction of the petitioner, the other persons also came to the
spot.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the
allegation against the petitioner is very serious. But, this Court
2025:KER:8352
perused Annexure-A2 medical certificate, which would show
that the petitioner is suffering from cardiac problem.
Considering the fact into the consideration, I think the
petitioner can be released on bail, after imposing stringent
conditions.
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]
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
2025:KER:8352
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. 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, this Bail Application is allowed with the following
2025:KER:8352
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 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
2025:KER:8352
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, of the commission of
which he is 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 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. If any of the above conditions
are violated by the petitioner, the
2025:KER:8352
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/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
