Kerala High Court
Adithyan vs State Of Kerala on 3 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 988 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:8353
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. 988 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1476/2024 OF THALAYOLAPARAMBU POLICE STATION, Kottayam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 14.01.2025 IN CRMC NO.23
OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER/S:
1 ADITHYAN
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O SHAJIMON, SRAYIL HOUSE, VADAYAR P.O, VADAYAR
VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686605
2 HEMANTH M.N
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O MANOJ, NIKARTHILTHARA, VADAYAR P.O, VADAYAR
VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686605
BY ADVS.
NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP
ADITH KIRAN R.S.
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:
BAIL APPL. NO. 988 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:8353
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A. No.988 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 petitioners are 1st and 2nd accused in Crime
No. 1476/2024 of Thalayolaparambu Police Station. The above
case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging
offences punishable under Secs. 296(b), 351(2), 115(2), 118(1)
and 110 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for
short 'BNS').
3. The prosecution case is that on 24.12.2024 at 9
pm, while the defacto complainant was engaged in
electrification works in connection with the Vadayar Church
Festival at the Vadayar-Muttunkal Road, the accused persons
2025:KER:8353
in pursuance of their common intention, abused the defacto
complainant with obscene words and criminally intimidated
him. Further, the 1st accused hit the defacto complainant with a
beer bottle on his head with the knowledge that it may cause
death. The defacto complainant attempted to escape from the
said blow. It is alleged that the 2 nd accused obtained the very
same beer bottle and inflicted a blow on the head of the
defacto complainant causing injury.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the allegation against the petitioners is not happened as
alleged by the prosecution. It is submitted that the injured is
going directly to the police station and giving the statement.
No intimation is received from the hospital. It is submitted that
the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court
grant them bail. It is also submitted that the petitioners are
students and they are ready to abide any conditions for
2025:KER:8353
granting bail. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail
application. The Public Prosecutor takes me through the wound
certificate of the injured.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the
allegation against the petitioners is very serious. But, the
petitioner submitted that the injured is going directly to the
police station and giving the statement. It is also submitted
that no intimation is received from the hospital to the police. I
do not want to make any observation about the same. It is a
matter to be investigated by the investigating officer.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also
considering the fact that the petitioners are the students, I
think the petitioners can be released on bail, after imposing
stringent conditions. There can be a direction to the
petitioners to appear before the investigating officer on all
Saturdays at 10.00 am, till final report is filed.
7. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that
2025:KER:8353
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
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:
2025:KER:8353
(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
directions:
1. The petitioners shall appear
before the Investigating Officer within two
weeks from today and shall undergo
2025:KER:8353
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
indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade them from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
2025:KER:8353
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 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. The petitioners shall appear
2025:KER:8353
before the investigating officer on all
Saturdays at 10.00 am, till final report is filed.
8. 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/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
