Kerala High Court
Rahul Raj vs State Of Kerala on 25 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:16366
BAIL APPL. NO.2293 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2293 OF 2025
CRIME NO.252/2025 OF Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta
PETITIONER/S:
1 RAHUL RAJ
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O.RAJAN PILLAI, EDAVANA PUTHENVEEDU, PALLIKKAL
MURI, PANAYIL.P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690503
2 GOKUL
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, THATTARATH, PALLIKKAL MURI,
PANAYIL.P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690503
3 RAHUL
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O.RAJENDRAN, RAHUL BHAVANAM, PALLIKKAL MURI,
PANAYIL.P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690503
4 AKHIL RAJ
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O.RAJAPPAN PILLAI, ANJALI BHAVANAM, PALLIKKAL
MURI, PANAYIL.P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690503
BY ADVS.
SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
K.R.RIJA
BREJITHA UNNIKRISHNAN
SUDEESH K.E.
SURYA R.
PRAHLADH S.P.
2025:KER:16366
BAIL APPL. NO.2293 OF 2025
2
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
SR.PP- HRITHWIK C.S
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:16366
BAIL APPL. NO.2293 OF 2025
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.2293 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime
No.252/2025 of Adoor Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioners alleging offences
punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 351(2), 189(2),
191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 118(1) & 110 of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
3. The prosecution case is that; on 02.02.2025,
at 08:00pm., accused Nos.1 to 3 came in a motor bike and
stopped the defacto complainant in front of a petrol pump
and assualted him. Later, at 08:30pm., the accused No.1 to 7
came to MM Cafe, where the defacto complainant and his
friend was having tea and again assualted both of them and
thereby, committed the above offence.
2025:KER:16366
BAIL APPL. NO.2293 OF 2025
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, offence
alleged are not attracted. The counsel submitted that in the
FIR, name of the accused are not mentioned. Petitioners are
falsely implicated in this case because of political reasons.
Counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by
any conditions if this Court grants them bail.
6. Public prosecutor opposed the bail
application. He submitted that the victim sustained lacerated
wound on scalp and posterior region.
7. This Court considered the contention of the
petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the name of
the accused are not mentioned in the FIR . There is no
criminal antecedents to the petitioners. The non-bailable
offences alleged are under Sections 118(1) and 110 of BNS.
Whether the ingredients of Section 110 of the BNS is
attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case is matter
2025:KER:16366
BAIL APPL. NO.2293 OF 2025
to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. I do not want
to make any observation about the same. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, I think, the petitioners
can surrender before the Investigating Officer for
interrogation. After interrogation, if arrest is recorded, there
can be a direction to the Investigating Officer to release the
petitioners on bail after imposing stringent conditions. Also,
there can be a direction to the petitioners to appear before
the Investigating Officer all Mondays at 10:00pm., till final
report is filed.
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.
2025:KER:16366
BAIL APPL. NO.2293 OF 2025
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 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
2025:KER:16366
BAIL APPL. NO.2293 OF 2025
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 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.
3. The petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer for interrogation as and
2025:KER:16366
BAIL APPL. NO.2293 OF 2025
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 him from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any police officer.
4. Petitioners shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. Petitioners shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which they are
accused, or suspected, of the commission of
which they are 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 petitioners
even while the petitioners are on bail as laid
2025:KER:16366
BAIL APPL. NO.2293 OF 2025
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of
Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].
7. Petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer all Mondays at
10:00pm., till final report is filed.
8. If any of the above conditions are
violated by the petitioners, 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
SSG
