Kerala High Court
Jishad K vs State Of Kerala on 10 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:20262
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 453 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
JISHAD K,
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O MUSTHAFA K, KALLAYI VEEDU, KONNARAM,
THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU P.O., ALANALLUR-I,
TIRUVALAMKUNNU, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678601
BY ADVS.
VIVEK.P.K
SANDEEP SUKUMARAN
GADHA.S
SHYAM KUMAR M.P
MOHAMED SHAREEF PARIYARATH
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
SR PP-SEETHA S
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:20262
BAIL APPL. NO.453 OF 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.453 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of March, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
2. Petitioner is the 8th accused in Crime
No.983/2024 of Mannarkad Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2) and
190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita BNS, 2023.
3. The prosecution case is that on 30.08.2024,
infront of Militans Club, Thuruvizhamkunnu, due to previous
enmity, the accused attacked the defacto complainant and
his friends by using dangerous weapons and the victim
sustained a grievous hurt.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
2025:KER:20262
BAIL APPL. NO.453 OF 2025
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that,
the petitioner is only the 8th accused and he his ready to
abide by any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. The
counsel for the petitioner submitted that, it is a case and
counter case and the counter case's FIR is produced as
Annexure A2.
6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the
co-accused bail application was dismissed by this Court and
the matter is pending before the Apex Court.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
Admittedly, the petitioner is the 8th accused. Moreover, it is
also an admitted fact that there is case and counter case.
There are two versions about the same incident. Which
version is correct cannot be decided while considering a bail
application. It is true that the co-accused bail application is
dismissed by this Court. But, the same is taken up before the
Apex Court and the Apex Court now, granted an interim order
2025:KER:20262
BAIL APPL. NO.453 OF 2025
not to arrest them. This Court directed the Registry to find out
about the present stage of the case pending before the Apex
Court. The Registry reported that the case is not listed for
hearing before the bench and next tentative posting date is
scheduled on 02.04.2025. I am of the considered opinion that,
this bail application need not be retained here. Petitioner shall
surrender before the Investigating Officer for interrogation.
After interrogation, if the arrest is recorded, there can be a
direction to the Investigating Officer to release the petitioner
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 trial.
2025:KER:20262
BAIL APPL. NO.453 OF 2025
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 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
2025:KER:20262
BAIL APPL. NO.453 OF 2025
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 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-
2025:KER:20262
BAIL APPL. NO.453 OF 2025
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 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
2025:KER:20262
BAIL APPL. NO.453 OF 2025
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, JUDGE
SSG
