Kerala High Court
Kiran vs State Of Kerala on 7 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 1591 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:10100
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. 1591 OF 2025
CRIME NO.369/2024 OF Neyyardam Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/S:
KIRAN
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. ACHAN KUNJU, THATTAMVILAKATHU VEEDU,
NELLIKONAM, KULATHOOR, UCHAKKADA P.O,
THIRUVANANDAPURAM, PIN - 695506. NOW RESIDING AT
KIRAN BHAVAN, BUDHANNOPOR, ENNAKKAD P.O, ENNAKKAD,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,, PIN - 689624
BY ADVS.
P.V.DILEEP
A.MUJEEB REHUMAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
NEYYAR DAM POLICE STATION, NEYYAR DAM.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 695672
SRI.HRITHWIK CS SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 1591 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:10100
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A. No. 1591 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482
(wrongly mentioned in the docket as '483 BNSS') of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime
No.369/2024 of Neyyar Dam Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences
punishable under Secs. 498A r/w 34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that , the 1st accused,
who is the husband of the defacto complainant, on 13.05.2021
and, while living together, demanded more dowry and
thereafter subjected the defacto complainant physical and
mental cruelty. Hence, it is alleged that the accused
committed the offences.
2025:KER:10100
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the other accused were already released on bail. The Public
Prosecutor submitted that the final report is already filed.
6. Admittedly, the offence alleged is matrimonial
in nature. The other accused were already released on bail.
The final report is also filed. I think the petitioner can be
released on bail, after imposing stringent conditions.
7. 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.
8. Recently the Apex Court in Siddharth v State
2025:KER:10100
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 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
2025:KER:10100
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 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 each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the arresting officer
concerned.
3. The petitioner shall appear
2025:KER:10100
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:10100
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
SKS
