Kerala High Court
Shihabudheen K P vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:10899
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 21ST MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 565 OF 2025
CRIME NO.16/2025 OF KOPPAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SHIHABUDHEEN K P
AGED 34 YEARS, S/O MOIDEEN K P, KUTTEPARAMBIL
HOUSE, CHEMBRA P.O., THIRUVEGAPURA, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT.,
PIN - 679 304.
BY ADV
BINU V V VEETTIL VALAPPIL
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
BY ADV
HRITHWIK C.S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:10899
B.A No.565 of 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
B.A. No.565 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime
No.16 of 2025 of Koppam Police Station, Palakkad. The
above case is registered against the petitioner alleging
offences punishable under Section 303 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Sections 20
read with Section 23 the Kerala Protection of River Banks
and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001.
3. The prosecution case is that the
petitioner transported river sand without valid licence and
permit.
2025:KER:10899
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner has not committed any
offence, and even if the entire allegations are accepted,
offence alleged are all bailable offences.
6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application.
7. This Court as per order dated 31.12.2021
in B.A No.9571/2021 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 prearrest bail on
conditions."
2025:KER:10899
In the light of the above principle, I think bail can
be granted to the petitioner 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
2025:KER:10899
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
2025:KER:10899
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
2025:KER:10899
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.
5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which he is
2025:KER:10899
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
2025:KER:10899
to approach the jurisdictional Court to
cancel the bail, if any of the above
conditions are violated.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
AMR
