Kerala High Court
Refeeque vs State Of Kerala on 3 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BA No.8859 of 2024
1
2025:KER:8437
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. 8859 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1173/2024 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
REFEEQUE,
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. SHAMSUDHEEN,
THANDANPARAMBIL HOUSE, PATTANAM,
VADAKKEKARA P.O., N. PARAVUR, PIN - 683 522
BY ADV M.K.FAISAL
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031
BY ADV.
SRI. NOUSHAD K.A., SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BA No.8859 of 2024
2
2025:KER:8437
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
BA No.8859 of 2024
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 03rd day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
2. The petitioner is the 6th accused in Crime
No.1173/2024 of Kodungallur Police Station, Thrissur.
The above case is registered against the petitioner
and others alleging offences punishable under
Section 126(2), 310(2), 311, 312, 61(1), 62 and 249
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
3. The prosecution case is that, on
30.08.2024 at 09.45 AM, when the defacto
complainant and his driver were travelling from
2025:KER:8437
Kodungallur to Kattakulam, the driver of the car
mislead to another way, were A2 to A5 restrained
the car by stopping another car across them.
Thereafter, they beat on the car and attempted to
extort money by threatening to kill them. It is
alleged that the defacto complainant tried to escape
from the scene and at that stage accused Nos.7 and
6 restricted him by blocking with another car.
Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the
offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that, even if the entire allegations are
accepted, the overt acts attributed to the petitioner
is minimum considering the allegations against the
other accused. It is also submitted that there is no
2025:KER:8437
criminal antecedents to the petitioner. The counsel
also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide
any conditions imposed by this Court, if this Court
grants him bail.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
bail application and submitted that the allegations
against the petitioner is very serious. But, the Public
Prosecutor submitted that, there is no criminal
antecedents to the petitioner as per the report
received by him from the Investigating Officer.
7. This Court considered the contentions of
the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true
that the allegations against the petitioner is very
serious. But, no criminal antecedents is alleged
against the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner is the
6th accused in the case. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, I think, the petitioner can
be released on bail after imposing stringent
2025:KER:8437
conditions. There will be a direction to the petitioner
to appear before the Investigating Officer on all
Mondays at 10.00 AM, till final report is filed.
8. 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.
9. 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
2025:KER:8437
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 investigation we fail to
appreciate why there should be a compulsion on
the officer to arrest the accused."
10. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of
2025:KER:8437
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
decisions and considering the facts and
circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is
allowed with the following conditions:
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
2025:KER:8437
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
2025:KER:8437
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. The petitioner shall appear before
the Investigating Officer on all Mondays
at 10.00 AM, till final report is filed.
8. If any of the above conditions are
violated by the petitioner the
jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in
2025:KER:8437
accordance to law, even though this 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
nvj JUDGE
