Kerala High Court

Anil Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 13 February, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

 B.A.Nos.1633 & 1628 of 2025
                                       1

                                                       2025:KER:12093


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 24TH MAGHA, 1946
                         BAIL APPL. NO. 1633 OF 2025
       OCCURANCE REPORT NO.1/2025 OF KODANAD FOREST RANGE
                               OFFICE, ERNAKULAM
 PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

                ANIL KUMAR
                AGED 44 YEARS
                S/O LAKSHMANAN, ATTASSERY PARAMBIL,
                MADIYATHAZHATHU, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM
                DISTRICT, PIN - 682027

                BY ADVS.
                JOSEPH RONY JOSE
                E.A.JOSE
 RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

                STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSEOUTOR, HIGH
                COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, PIN -
                682031



         THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
 ON 13.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1628/2025, THE COURT
 ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
  B.A.Nos.1633 & 1628 of 2025
                                      2

                                                       2025:KER:12093




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 24TH MAGHA, 1946
                         BAIL APPL. NO. 1628 OF 2025
        CRIME NO.12/2025 OF CHERANELLOOR POLICE STATION,
                                  ERNAKULAM
 PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

                ANIL KUMAR
                AGED 44 YEARS
                S/O LAKSHMANAN, ATTASSERY PARAMBIL,
                MADIYATHAZHATHU, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM
                DISTRICT, PIN - 682027

                BY ADVS.
                JOSEPH RONY JOSE
                E.A.JOSE
 RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

                STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY THE S.H.O OF POLICE,
                CHERANALLOOR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE
                PUBLIC PROSEOUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT
                ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, PIN - 682031

                BY ADV.
                SRI.NOUSHAD K.A., SENIOR PP



         THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
 ON 13.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1633/2025, THE COURT
 ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A.Nos.1633 & 1628 of 2025
                                       3

                                                                2025:KER:12093


                    P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                  --------------------------------
                  B.A.Nos.1633 & 1628 of 2025
                   -------------------------------
             Dated this the 13th day of February, 2025


                                 ORDER

These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The petitioner in

these bail applications is the same person and therefore I am

disposing of these bail applications by a common order.

2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime

No.12/2025 of Cheranelloor Police Station, Ernakulam and in

O.R. No.1/2025 of Kodanad Forest Range Office, Ernakulam.

Crime No.12/2025 is registered alleging offences punishable

under Sections 4 & 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959. O.R.

No.1/2025 is registered alleging offences punishable under

Sections 2(31)b, 39(1)(2)(3), 42, 58C, 50 & 51 of the Wild

Life Protection Act, 1972 (Amendment Act, 2022). The

petitioner apprehend arrest in these two cases.

3. The prosecution case is that, on 13.01.2025,

the house of the petitioner was searched by the police in B.A.Nos.1633 & 1628 of 2025

2025:KER:12093

connection with CMP No.59/2025 pending before the

Magistrate Court. The police found 3 iron swords of 85 cm, 57

cm and 51 cm respectively, and accordingly registered Crime

No.12/2025. In the same search, the horn of a wild animal

was also seized. Hence O.R. No.1/2025 is registered by the

Kodanad Forest Range Office. According to the petitioner, the

allegation against him is not correct.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that,

even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under

the Arms Act is not attracted because it is not a notified area.

The counsel submitted that the allegation that he was found in

possession of the horn of a wild animal is not correct.

6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application and submitted that serious offences are alleged

against the petitioner. The Public Prosecutor also submitted

that, there is criminal antecedents to the petitioner.

7. This Court considered the contentions of the

petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the B.A.Nos.1633 & 1628 of 2025

2025:KER:12093

allegation against the petitioner is very serious. For the

offences alleged against the petitioner, the maximum

punishment that can be imposed is up to 7 years. The Apex

Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another

[2014 (8) SCC 273] observed that, even while considering an

application for anticipatory bail, the court should take a lenient

view if the punishment that can be imposed is only up to 7

years. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the

above judgment:

"7. xxxxxxxxx 7.1. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that all person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. A police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case, or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such B.A.Nos.1633 & 1628 of 2025

2025:KER:12093

evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the police officer, or unless such accused person is arrested, his conclusions, which one may reach based on facts.

7.2. The law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. The law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.

7.3. In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. In fine, before arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes, envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 CrPC."

B.A.Nos.1633 & 1628 of 2025

2025:KER:12093

Keeping in mind the above dictum and also

considering the fact that the articles were already seized, I

think the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not

necessary. Therefore, this bail application can be allowed on

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 B.A.Nos.1633 & 1628 of 2025

2025:KER:12093

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."

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.

11. Considering the dictum laid down in the

above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of

these cases, these Bail Applications are allowed with the

following directions:

1. The petitioner shall B.A.Nos.1633 & 1628 of 2025

2025:KER:12093

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

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