Kerala High Court

Saji E J vs State Of Kerala on 14 February, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

BAIL APPL. NO. 1718 OF 2025                1




                                                       2025:KER:12489
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                        PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

      FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 25TH MAGHA, 1946

                              BAIL APPL. NO. 1718 OF 2025

 CRIME NO.124/2025 OF THALAYOLAPARAMBU POLICE STATION, Kottayam

PETITIONER/S:

      1        SAJI E J
               AGED 58 YEARS
               S/O P C JOHN EDAMANAYIL HOUSE ANATHI PO K S MANGALAM
               VAZHI VAIKOM KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686608

      2        REJI V T
               AGED 56 YEARS
               S/O V P THOMAS VALOTHIL HOUSE BRAHMAMANGALAM P O
               THALAYOLAPARAMBU, PIN - 686605

      3        SIJU
               AGED 44 YEARS
               S/O VARGHESE CHITTETHAZHATHU VEEDU KARIPPADAM P O
               THALAYOLAPARAMBU, PIN - 686605

      4        JOSEPH
               AGED 72 YEARS
               S/O PATHROSE PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE BRAHMAMANGALAM P O
               THALAYOLAPARAMBU, PIN - 686605


               BY ADVS.
               S.RAJEEV
               V.VINAY
               M.S.ANEER
               SARATH K.P.
               ANILKUMAR C.R.
               K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
 BAIL APPL. NO. 1718 OF 2025             2




                                                                 2025:KER:12489

RESPONDENT/S:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
               KERALA, PIN - 682031

      2        STATION HOUSE OFFICER
               THALAYOLAPARAMABU POLICE STATION, KOTTAYM (CRIME NO.
               124/2025 OF THALAYOLAPARAMBU POLICE STATION,
               KOTTAYAM), PIN - 686605

               SRI.NOUSHAD KA, SR.PP


       THIS     BAIL    APPLICATION   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR    ADMISSION   ON
14.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 1718 OF 2025               3




                                                               2025:KER:12489

                      P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                    --------------------------------------
                        B.A. No. 1718 of 2025
                    --------------------------------------
              Dated this the 14th day of February, 2025



                                    ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.

124/2025 of Thalayolaparambu Police Station. The above case

is registered against the petitioners alleging offences

punishable under secs. 332(c), 126(2), 115(2), 123 r/w 3(5) of

the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').

3. The prosecution case is that the Major

Archeparchy of Ernakulam-Angamaly Diocese appointed

Fr.John Thottupuram as the Priest in charge of the Prasadagiri

St.Sebastian's Church. Challenging his appointment and the

conduct of Holy Qurbana in the uniform model, certain

believers approached Munsiff Court, Vaikom and obtained an

2025:KER:12489 interim order for continuing the present status. According to

the prosecution, by infringing the order of the Munsiff Court,

Fr.John Thottupuram and 30 other believers entered into the

premises of the church and made an attempt to conduct Holy

Qurbana in the uniform model. According to the defacto

complainant, he informed the accused and other believers that

it would be violation of the court order and aggrieved by the

same, the accused Nos. 1 to 4 removed the defacto complainant

from the altar and attempted to break open the door of the

church and also wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant

and caused hurt to him by hitting with hand. The prosecution

also alleged that the 2nd accused used a pepper spray on the

face of the defacto complainant and caused pain and suffering

to him and thereby committed the offences.

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 only non-

bailable offence is under Sec. 123 BNS. The counsel also takes

2025:KER:12489 me through the order passed by the Munsiff Court. The counsel

submitted that there is no status quo order as stated by the

prosecution. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the

petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that there is some

dispute between two groups in the church. According to one

group, there is an order of the Munsiff Court and the other group

says that there is no such order. That is a matter to be decided by

the civil court. In such a situation, the alleged incident happened.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the

custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not necessary. The

petitioners 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

2025:KER:12489 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

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

2025:KER:12489 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.

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 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.

2025:KER:12489

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 so as to dissuade them from