Kerala High Court
Harigovind vs State Of Kerala on 7 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:10453
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. 1243 OF 2025
CRIME NO.83/2025 OF Valappad Police Station, Thrissur
PETITIONER/S:
1 HARIGOVIND,
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O ANILAN, KARUPPAL HOUSE, NATTIKA, THRISSUR
DISTRICT,, PIN - 680566
2 ARJUN,
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O BHAGATH SINGH, MANGATHALA HOUSE, NATTIKA, THRISSUR
DISTRICT,, PIN - 680566
3 VISHNU,
AGED 23 YEARS
AGED 23, S/O RAJAN, PUDUSSERY HOUSE, NATTIKA, THRISSUR
DISTRICT,, PIN - 680566
BY ADV ABRAHAM MATHAN
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
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:10453
BAIL APPL. NO.1243 OF 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.1243 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. Petitioners are the accused Nos.2 to 4 in
Crime No.83/2025 of Valappad Police Station. The above case
is registered against the petitioners alleging offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110 and
3(5) of the Baratiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023.
3. The prosecution case is that on 17.01.2025 at
about 08:00pm., the accused with an intention to cause injury
to the defacto complainant, wrongfully restrained the defacto
complainant and his father and 1 st accused assaulted the
defacto complainant using a stick and thereafter, when the
father and brother came to help him, they were restrained
and assaulted by the petitioners herein by stamping and
2025:KER:10453
BAIL APPL. NO.1243 OF 2025
hitting with hands. Hence, it is alleged that the accused
committed the offence.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted
that, even if the entire allegations are accepted, the
petitioners who are the accused Nos.2 to 4 used only their
hands. The main allegation is against the 1 st accused. The
petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions, if this Court
grant them bail.
6. Public prosecutor opposed the bail
application. Public prosecutor submitted that as per the report
received by him from the Investigating Officer, no criminal
antecedents is alleged against the petitioners.
7. This Court considered the contention of the
petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. The main overtact is
attributed to the 1st accused in this case. The petitioners are
accused Nos.2 to 4. The allegations against the petitioners
are that they attacked the victim using their hands.
2025:KER:10453
BAIL APPL. NO.1243 OF 2025
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think
the petitioners 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
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
2025:KER:10453
BAIL APPL. NO.1243 OF 2025
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
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:
2025:KER:10453
BAIL APPL. NO.1243 OF 2025
1. The petitioners 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 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
2025:KER:10453
BAIL APPL. NO.1243 OF 2025
so as to dissuade him from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any 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. If any of the above conditions are
violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional
2025:KER:10453
BAIL APPL. NO.1243 OF 2025
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
