Kerala High Court
C.Unnikrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 27 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BA No.11399 of 2024
1
2025:KER:6592
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 7TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 11399 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1821/2024 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 26.12.2024 IN
CRMC NO.1403 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS
COURT, MANJERI
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
C.UNNIKRISHNAN,
AGED 59 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAN NAIR,
CHIRAKKAL HOUSE, THIRUNNAVAYA
(VIA),ATHAVANAD P.O., MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 676 301
BY ADVS.
ADITHYA VARMA S.
RAMEES P.K.
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 ADDL. R2. SYAMLY
W/O. PRASAD P.V., AGED 34 YEARS, PARAPPUR
THAZHATHETHIL HOUSE, KANDANAKAM, KALADI
BA No.11399 of 2024
2
2025:KER:6592
P.O., KALADY, MALAPPURAM (IMPLEADED AS R2
VIDE ORDER DATED 20-1-25 IN CRL MA 1/25)
BY ADVS.
SRI. NOUSHAD K.A., SR.PP
SRI. SANTHEEP ANKARATH - R2
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BA No.11399 of 2024
3
2025:KER:6592
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
BA No.11399 of 2024
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime
No.1821/2024 of Tirur Police Station, Malappuram.
The above case is registered against the petitioner
alleging offences punishable under Section 75(1)(i)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
3. The prosecution case is that, on several
days in September 2024, the accused herein, who
was working as a Clerk in Nava Mukunda Temple at
Thirunavaya had with sexual intent, touched the
body of the defacto complainant who was working as
2025:KER:6592
an attender in the same office. 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, it is a false case foisted against the petitioner
by the defacto complainant. The counsel submitted
that the internal committee constituted as per the
decision of the Apex Court exonerated the petitioner
as per Annexure-A3 order. The counsel also
submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any
conditions imposed by this Court, if this Court grants
him bail.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the
defacto complainant seriously opposed the bail
application. The counsel submitted that the internal
committee members as well as the petitioner herein
2025:KER:6592
belongs to the same union. Therefore, the report is
manipulated by the committee at the instance of the
petitioner. It is also submitted that the defacto
complainant challenged Annexure-A3 before the
appropriate authority. The counsel submitted that
the petitioner committed the offence. The learned
Public Prosecutor also opposed the bail application.
But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that no criminal
antecedents is alleged against the petitioner as per
the report received by him from the Investigating
Officer.
7. This Court considered the contentions of
the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The
allegation against the petitioner is that, he touched
the body of the defacto complainant and hence, he
committed the offence under Section 75(1)(i) of BNS.
The internal committee constituted as per the
2025:KER:6592
decision of the Apex Court exonerated the petitioner.
The defacto complainant is not agreeing with the
findings of the internal committee. Whatever that
may be the prosecution can prove the case through
oral evidence. No custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is necessary. In such circumstances, I am
of the considered opinion that the petitioner can be
released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.
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
2025:KER:6592
trial.
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
2025:KER:6592
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 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:6592
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:6592
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:6592
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
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
nvj JUDGE
