Kerala High Court
Manoj vs State Of Kerala on 7 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:10119
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 18TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1258 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1312/2024 OF Kanjiramkulam Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 09.01.2025 IN CRMC NO.4055
OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/S:
MANOJ
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. RETNAKARAN, RESIDING AT OTTHURUTHANVILA VEEDU,
GANDHIPURAM, KOTTUKAL, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 521
BY ADVS.
R.ANAS MUHAMMED SHAMNAD
T.U.SUJITH KUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682 031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KANJIRAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 524
BY ADV.
NOIUSHAD.K.A, SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:10119
BAIL APPL. NO.1258 OF 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.1258 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 07th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime
No.1312/2024 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station. The above
case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences
punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 16.12.2024,
petitioner along with two others, attacked the the defacto
complainant infront of his house and used abusive languages.
It is alleged that accused used iron piece for the attack.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
2025:KER:10119
BAIL APPL. NO.1258 OF 2025
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that,
it is a case and counter case. Annexure-A2 is the FIR in the
counter case. The counsel submitted that, the incident is not
happened as alleged by the prosecution.
6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. But, he conceded that, as per the report received
by him from the Investigating Officer, no criminal antecedents
is alleged against the petitioner.
7. This Court considered the contention of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, it is a case
and counter case. There are two versions about the same
incident. Which version is correct cannot be decided in a bail
application. No criminal antecedents is alleged against the
petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I think the petitioner can be granted bail after imposing
stringent conditions.
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
2025:KER:10119
BAIL APPL. NO.1258 OF 2025
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 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
2025:KER:10119
BAIL APPL. NO.1258 OF 2025
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
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:
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:10119
BAIL APPL. NO.1258 OF 2025
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
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
2025:KER:10119
BAIL APPL. NO.1258 OF 2025
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 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
SSG
