Kerala High Court
Sirajudheen K.K vs State Of Kerala on 7 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:10064
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. 1252 OF 2025
CRIME NO.2025/2024 OF Tirur Police Station, Malappuram
PETITIONER/S:
SIRAJUDHEEN K.K
AGED 29 YEARS
SON OF MUHAMMED K.K, KARUVANKATUKAVIL, RANGATTUR,
NADUVATTOM P.O, NADUVATTOM, MALAPPURAM, PIN -
679571
BY ADVS.
IRFAN ZIRAJ
P.M.ZIRAJ
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
TIRUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676101
BY ADV.
HRITHWIK.C.S, 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:10064
BAIL APPL. NO.1252 OF 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
B.A. No.1252 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. 2025/2024 of Tirur Police Station, Malappuram. The above
case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections
303(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanita (BNS) 2023 and
Sections 20 and 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks
and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001.
3. The prosecution case is that accused
transported sand without any license and permit.
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 is
made out.
2025:KER:10064
BAIL APPL. NO.1252 OF 2025
6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. He submitted that, the petitioner has got criminal
antecedents. He is involved in four other crimes with similar
set of allegations.
7. This Court considered the contention of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. This Court in
Annexure-2 Order, observed like this:
" 6. The offence under Sections 20 and 23 of the
Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation
of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 is bailable in
nature. It is settled that when there is
specific/special law covering the question of theft
of river sand, the offence under Indian Penal Code
would not apply. Considering the allegations
levelled against the petitioner, the custodial
interrogation of the petitioner does not appear to
be necessary. For all these reasons, the petitioner
is entitled to pre- arrest bail on conditions."
8. In the light of the above principle, I think the
petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent
conditions.
2025:KER:10064
BAIL APPL. NO.1252 OF 2025
9. 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.
10. 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
2025:KER:10064
BAIL APPL. NO.1252 OF 2025
(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."
11. 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.
2025:KER:10064
BAIL APPL. NO.1252 OF 2025
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 disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any police officer.
4. Petitioner shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
2025:KER:10064
BAIL APPL. NO.1252 OF 2025
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 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
2025:KER:10064
BAIL APPL. NO.1252 OF 2025
the bail, if any of the above conditions are
violated.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE
SSG
