Kerala High Court
Sajin Joy @ Shanu vs State Of Kerala on 12 June, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
BAIL APPL. NO. 6827 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:41511
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 6827 OF 2025
CRIME NO.503/2025 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 16.05.2025 IN CRMC NO.917
OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM
PETITIONER(S)/3RD ACCUSED:
SAJIN JOY @ SHANU
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O. JOY RAMMI, THUNDUVILA VEEDU,
KANNANALLOOR.P.O, KOLLAM TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691576.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BINU GEORGE
SMT.HEMALATHA
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031.
BY SMT. SREEJA V. - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.06.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 6827 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:41511
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A. No.6827 of 2025
...................................................
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner is the third accused in Crime No.503/2025 of Kottiyam Police
Station, Kollam, registered for the offences punishable under Sections
126, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 22.03.2025, the accused along with
other persons assaulted the defacto complainant with a wooden stick
and inflicted serious injuries on the back of the head of the de facto
complainant, and thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public
Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been
falsely arrayed as an accused and that he has no involvement in the
alleged crime. It was submitted that petitioner is suffering from stage-III
cancer and that he is undergoing Chemotherapy. In support of the said
BAIL APPL. NO. 6827 OF 2025
2025:KER:41511
contention, Annexure-A3 has been produced. It was further submitted
that the petitioner is willing to abide by any conditions that may be
imposed upon him.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted
that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and
custodial interrogation is essential, and therefore, anticipatory bail ought
not to be granted.
7. Petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the defacto complainant along
with other persons with a wooden stick on the back of the head of the
defact complainant and thereby inflicted a lacerated wound. The defacto
complainant was admitted to the hospital as an inpatient and remained
there for two days. Though the nature of allegations are serious, the
learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that petitioner is suffering
from Stage-III Cancer and that he is undergoing Chemotherapy, however,
on a perusal of Annexure-A3 it is seen that petitioner was discharged
from the Travancore Medical College Hospital on 12.08.2024. Though
the petitioner's illness is not a justification, taking note of the nature of
injuries, inflicted by the overt act of the petitioner; I am of the view that
bail can be granted to the petitioner since custodial interrogation is not
necessary.
8. In Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and
Another [(2020) 5 SCC 1], it was held that while considering whether to
grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by
considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role
BAIL APPL. NO. 6827 OF 2025
2025:KER:41511
attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. Grant of
anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to be
imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of each case,
and subject to the discretion of the court.
9. In Ashok Kumar v. State of Union Territory Chandigarh [2024 SCC
OnLine SC 274], it has been held that a mere assertion on the part of the
State while opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial
interrogation is required would not be sufficient and that the State would
have to show or indicate more than prima facie case as to why custodial
interrogation of the accused is required for the purpose of investigation.
In the instant case, the State has not been able to convince this Court
that custodial interrogation is necessary.
10. On a consideration of the circumstances arising in the case, this
Court is of the view that though the allegations are serious in nature,
custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Further, having
regard to the nature of the offence and the severity of punishment,this
Court is of the view that petitioner is entitled to be released on pre-arrest
bail on conditions.
11. Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following
conditions:
(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on
23.06.2025 and shall subject himself to interrogation.
(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest
the petitioner, then, he shall be released on bail on him executing a
BAIL APPL. NO. 6827 OF 2025
2025:KER:41511
bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent
sureties each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer.
(c) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and
when required and shall also co-operate with the investigation.
(d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the
witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.
(e) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on
bail.
(f) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the
Court having jurisdiction.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, or if any modification
or deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional Court shall
be empowered to consider such applications, if any, and pass appropriate
orders in accordance with law, notwithstanding the bail having been
granted by this Court.
sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
AMV/13/06/2025
BAIL APPL. NO. 6827 OF 2025
2025:KER:41511
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 6827/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 503/2025 OF
KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A2 A TRUCE COPY OF F-FDG WHOLE BODY PET-CT STUDY
DATED 23.05.2024 OF PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMERY DATED
12.08.2024 ISSUED FROM TRAVANCORE MEDICAL
COLLAGE HOSPITAL, KOLLAM.
ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.05.2025 IN CRL.
MC. NO. 917/2025 OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM.
