Kerala High Court
Alimon P.M vs State Of Kerala on 14 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BA No.1680 of 2025
1
2025:KER:12727
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. 1680 OF 2025
CRIME NO.209/2025 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
ALIMON P.M.
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O KOYA K K, VELUTHARAMBATH HOUSE,
POOLAKKADAVU, MARIKKUNNU POST, KURUVATTUR
PARAMBIL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673012
BY ADVS.
M.DEVESH
M.ANUROOP
MURSHID ALI M.
JYOTHIS MARY
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031
BY ADV.
SRI. NOUSHAD K.A., SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BA No.1680 of 2025
2
2025:KER:12727
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
BA No. 1680 of 2025
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime
No.209/2025 of Tirur Police Station, Malappuram.
The above case is registered against the petitioner
alleging offences punishable under Section 303(2) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and also
under Section 20 r/w 23 of the Kerala Protection of
River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act,
2001.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused
illegally transported the river sand without any valid
2025:KER:12727
permit and license. Hence, it is alleged that the
accused committed the offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no
offence is made out against the petitioner. The
counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready to
abide any conditions imposed by this Court, if bail is
granted to him. The learned Public Prosecutor
opposed the bail application.
6. This Court as per order dated 31.12.2021 in
BA 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
2025:KER:12727
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 pre-arrest bail on conditions."
In the light of the above principle, I think, this bail
application can be allowed 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
2025:KER:12727
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
2025:KER:12727
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 is not a rule that bail should be
denied in every case.
Considering the dictum laid down in the above
decisions and considering the facts and
circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is
allowed with the following conditions:
1. The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer within two weeks
from today and shall undergo
interrogation.
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating
2025:KER:12727
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
disclosing such facts to the Court or to
any police officer.
4. Petitioner shall not leave India
2025:KER:12727
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 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
2025:KER:12727
violated by the petitioner the
jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in
accordance to law, even though this bail
is granted by this Court. The prosecution
is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional
Court to cancel the bail, if any of the
above conditions are violated.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
nvj JUDGE
