Kerala High Court
Amruthlal.H vs State Of Kerala on 12 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BA No.2664 of 2025
1
2025:KER:21151
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2664 OF 2025
CRIME NO.223/2025 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2:
AMRUTHLAL.H
AGED 27 YEARS, S/O VIJAYABHAVANAM, KANDALLOOR
SOUTH, KANDALOOR. P.O., KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA,
KANDALOOR VILLAGE, KANDALLOOR TALUKJ, KANDALOOR
THEKKUM MURI, KARTHIKAPALLY. P.O., PIN - 690
535
BY ADVS.
M.G.SREEJITH
VIDYAJITH M.
BINCY JOSE
GOPIKA K.V.
K.J.SHINY
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, KAYAMKULAM ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT, PIN - 690106
BY ADV.:
SRI. G SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BA No.2664 of 2025
2
2025:KER:21151
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
BA No.2664 of 2025
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of March, 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.223/2025 of Kayamkulam Police Station,
Alappuzha. The above case is registered against the
petitioner and others alleging offences punishable
under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 332(c),
324(4) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
(BNS), 2023.
3. The prosecution case is that, on
31.01.2025 in between 10.00 PM and 11.00 PM, the
2025:KER:21151
petitioner and other accused were formed
themselves into an unlawful assembly and
trespassed into the house of the defacto
complainant, damaged the window glass of the
house, glass of the car and threatened that they will
kill the mother, brother and the defacto complainant.
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 only non-bailable offence alleged
against the petitioner is under Section 332(c) of the
BNS. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I think, the petitioner can be released on bail
after imposing stringent conditions. The Public
Prosecutor submitted that the damage alleged to be
caused by the accused is Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, in
2025:KER:21151
the light of the principle laid down by this Court in
Davis P.R. v. State of Kerala [2025 (2) KHC 6],
there can be a direction to deposit the damage
caused while granting bail subject to the
investigation and trial if any. The petitioner shall
deposit an amount of Rs.3,000/- before the
jurisdictional court and produce the receipt before
the Investigating Officer at the time of surrender.
6. 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:21151
trial.
7. 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:21151
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."
8. 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. The petitioner shall deposit an
2025:KER:21151
amount of Rs.3,000/- before the
jurisdictional court and produce the receipt
before the Investigating Officer at the time
of surrender.
3. 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.
4. 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
2025:KER:21151
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.
5. Petitioner shall not leave India
without permission of the jurisdictional
Court.
6. 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.
7. 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,
2025:KER:21151
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].
8. If any of the above conditions are
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
is 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
