Kerala High Court
Molly Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 29 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:6952
BAIL APPL. NO. 675 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 9TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 675 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1600/2024 OF North Paravur Police Station
PETITIONER/S:
MOLLY JOSEPH
AGED 56 YEARS, D/O. AUGUSTINE,
KALLARACKAL HOUSXE, KEDAMANGALAM SOUTH,
NORTH PARAVUR P.O.,, PIN - 683513
BY ADVS.
K.R.VINOD
M.S.LETHA
NABIL KHADER
ATHIRA K.S.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
SRI G SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:6952
BAIL APPL. NO. 675 OF 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A.No.675 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th 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.1600/2024 of North Paravur Police Station. The above case
is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences
punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused in this
case mentally and physically harassed the defacto complainant.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is the mother-in-law of the defacto complainant
and there is no serious allegation against the petitioner. The
2025:KER:6952
BAIL APPL. NO. 675 OF 2025
counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any
conditions if this Court grant her bail. The Public Prosecutor
opposed the bail application.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly the offence
alleged is matrimonial offence. The petitioner is the mother-in-
law of the defacto complainant.
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 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:
2025:KER:6952
BAIL APPL. NO. 675 OF 2025
"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."
2025:KER:6952
BAIL APPL. NO. 675 OF 2025
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.
10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above
decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this
case, I think bail can be granted after imposing stringent
conditions.
Therefore, 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
2025:KER:6952
BAIL APPL. NO. 675 OF 2025
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 without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which she is
accused, or suspected, of the commission
of which she is suspected.
6. Needless to mention, it would be well
within the powers of the investigating
officer to investigate the matter and, if
2025:KER:6952
BAIL APPL. NO. 675 OF 2025
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 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
JV JUDGE
