Kerala High Court
Nimal Das K.H vs State Of Kerala on 10 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 10974 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:1934
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 20TH POUSHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 10974 OF 2024
CRIME NO.869/2024 OF Thrithala Police Station, Palakkad
PETITIONER/S:
NIMAL DAS K.H.
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O.HARIDAS, 115 KUNNATHU VEEDU, CHERUKULAM,
KOTTAYI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678572
BY ADV K.RAKESH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THRITHALA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
679534
SRI.G.SUDHEER PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 10974 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:1934
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A. No. 10974 of 2024
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of January, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime
No.869/2024 of Thrithala Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable
under Sec. 303 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for
short 'BNS') and Secs.20 and 23 of the Kerala Protection of
River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (for
short 'Sand Act').
3. The prosecution case is that at 4.45 am, the
accused was was found transporting river sand in three plastic
sacks, without permit in a Mini Lorry.
2025:KER:1934
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. This Court as per the order dated 31.12.2021 in
BA No. 9571/2021 observed that when offence under Secs. 20
and 23 of the Sand Act is registered, the offence under the IPC
would not apply. Admittedly, the offence alleged against the
petitioner under the Sand Act is bailable. Considering the facts
and circumstances of this case, I think the bail can be granted
to the petitioner, after imposing stringent conditions.
6. 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.
7. Recently the Apex Court in Siddharth v State
2025:KER:1934
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."
8. 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
2025:KER:1934
not a rule that bail should be denied in every case.
9. 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 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
2025:KER:1934
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
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
2025:KER:1934
v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020
(1) KHC 663].
7. If any of the above conditions are
violated by the petitioner, 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
SKS
