Kerala High Court
Akhil Mohanan vs State Of Kerala on 11 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 2985 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:20639
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2985 OF 2025
CRIME NO.2160/2024 OF Thodupuzha Police Station, Idukki
PETITIONER/S:
AKHIL MOHANAN
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O MOHANAN, KOYAKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THALAYANAD,
ANCHIRI P.O, THODUPUZHA, KERALA,, PIN - 685585
BY ADVS.
NAVANEETH.N.NATH
ABHIRAMI S.
ABDUL LATHEEF P.M.
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
PP- G SUDHEER
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 2985 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:20639
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A. No. 2985 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of March, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. The petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime
No.2160/2024 of Thodupuzha Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences
punishable under Secs. 189(2), 296, 117(1), 308(1), 336(2),
338, 336(3), 340(2), 351(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The case is registered based on a private
complaint filed before the jurisdictional court, which was
forwarded to the Police under Sec. 175(3) Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner-
2025:KER:20639
accused along with accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 allegedly act
perpetrating grave and violent act against the defacto
complainant resulting in severe consequences including
grievous injuries. Hence, it is alleged that the accused
committed the offences.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the alleged incident happened on 22.09.2024. The private
complaint was filed on 26.11.2024. The counsel submitted that
it is a false case foisted against the petitioner and submitted
that huge amount is due to the petitioner from the defacto
complainant. Hence, a false case is foisted. The Public
Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, the Public
Prosecutor submitted that no criminal antecedents is alleged
against the petitioner.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the case is
2025:KER:20639
registered based on a private complaint filed before the
jurisdictional court, which was forwarded to the police. There
was a long delay in filing the complaint. It is true that the
allegation in the complaint is serious. But, the matter is under
investigation. Considering the facts and circumstances of this
case, I think the petitioner can be directed to surrender before
the investigating officer and after interrogation, if the arrest is
recorded, there can be a direction to release the petitioner on
bail, after imposing stringent conditions.
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
2025:KER:20639
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."
9. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of
Investigation [2023 KHC 6961], the Apex Court observed
2025:KER:20639
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, 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
2025:KER:20639
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 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
2025:KER:20639
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
JUDGE
SKS
