Kerala High Court

Noushad T T vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                              2025:KER:1183
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

 WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025/18TH POUSHA, 1946

                BAIL APPL. NO. 10270 OF 2024

 CRIME NO.1002/2024 OF VENGARA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.12.2024 IN CRMC NO.1388 OF 2024

        OF THE DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

          NOUSHAD T T
          AGED 46 YEARS, S/O MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI
          THOOMBATH PUTHANPEEDIYEKKAL HOUSE
          CHEREKADU A R NAGAR MALAPPURAM DIST,
          PIN - 676 305.

          BY ADVS.
          S.RAJEEV
          V.VINAY
          M.S.ANEER
          DIPA V.
          SARATH K.P.
          ANILKUMAR C.R.
          K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN



RESPONDENT/STATE:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.

    2     STATATION HOUSE OFFICER
          VENGARA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
          PIN - 676 304.
                                                        2025:KER:1183
B.A No.10270 of 2024
                                    2
           BY ADV
           NOUSHAD K.A., SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


      THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.01.2025,     THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                  2025:KER:1183
B.A No.10270 of 2024
                               3


                   P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                --------------------------------
                  B.A.No.10270 of 2024
                 -------------------------------
         Dated this the 8th day of January, 2025

                           ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1002

of 2024 of Vengara Police Station. The above case is

registered against the petitioner alleging offences

punishable under Section 288 of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sections 4(b) and 5 of the

Explosive Substance Act, 1908.

3. The prosecution case is that the police

party conducted a search in a granite quarry and the police

found some explosives and granite stones inside the

quarry. It is also alleged that a lorry was also found inside

the quarry. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed 2025:KER:1183

offences.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the

Public Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner is only the owner of the property and he

was not present at the time of the alleged inspection by

the police authorities. The counsel also submitted that,

even if the entire allegations are accepted, the police only

seized the remnants of the explosives. The counsel relied

on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in

Major Singh v. State of Punjab [2001 KHC 2606].

6. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed

the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that

the case is at the investigation stage and the prosecution is

collecting materials. At this stage, this Court may not

observe that the remnants of the explosives will not attract

the offence. The Public Prosecutor submitted that, in

addition to the remnants of explosives, other items were

also seized.

2025:KER:1183

7. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in

Major Singh's case (supra) observed like this:

"16. Even otherwise, prima facie, the detonator fuses and cordless wire, allegedly recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the accused - appellant Major Singh, could not be termed as explosive substances, in the absence of any expert opinion. In the disclosure statement, Exhibit PJ, recovery memo Exhibit PK, police request Exhibit PH and report of Head Constable Sham Lal, Exhibit PH / 1, reference has been made to 525 detonator fuses. Mere recovery of detonator fuses, in my opinion, would not bring the case of the accused - appellant under the provisions of Explosive Substances Act. Similar is the position with regard to 50 feet "cordless wire".

So far as 100 empty detonators are concerned, the same would be neither here nor there. In any case, as referred to above, there is no expert evidence on record to show that recovered articles i.e. 525 detonator fuses, 100 empty detonators and 50 feet cordless wire would bring the case within the purview of Explosive Substances Act. Furthermore, as referred to above, the recovery of 20 kilograms of alleged explosives, would also not bring the cases within the purview of Explosive Substances Act, as nothing has come on the record to show that the sample of explosives was found by any expert to be explosive substance, covered under the provisions of Explosive Substances Act."

2025:KER:1183

8. I think there is force in the argument of the

Prosecutor that the Punjab and Haryana High Court

considered the matter after the final report is filed. This is a

case in which the investigation is going on. But, the

petitioner is the owner of the property. What is the

involvement of the petitioner is also a matter of

investigation. I do not want to make any observation about

the same. But, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner

may not be necessary in the facts and circumstances of

this case. In such circumstances, I think, the petitioner can

be granted bail after imposing stringent conditions.

9. 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 2025:KER:1183

opportunity of securing fair trial.

10. 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 2025:KER:1183

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."

11. 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 2025:KER:1183

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

disclosing such facts to the Court or to

any police officer.

2025:KER:1183

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

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