Kerala High Court
Radhika vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 3557 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:26330
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 3557 OF 2025
CRIME NO.324/2025 OF Pathanapuram Police Station, Kollam
PETITIONER/S:
RADHIKA
AGED 40 YEARS
W/O RAJESH , NANDANAM, PIDAVOOR P.O, PATHANAPURAM
TALUK,KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 689695
BY ADV NAHAS H.
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP-NOUSHAD K A
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 3557 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:26330
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A. No. 3557 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of March, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.
324/2025 of Pathanapuram Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable
under Secs. 118(1) and 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (BNS).
3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner on
07.03.2025, send a voice message that if the balance payment
is not given to the petitioner, the defacto complainant's
daughter will come as a dead body. On 07.03.2025 at 5 pm,
the defacto complainant went to the petitioner's Nandhanam
2025:KER:26330
Tailors Shop near Mount Tabore School to question about the
voice message send to the defacto complainant. At that time,
the petitioner stabbed the left hand palm of the defacto
complainant using a scissors and the victim sustained serious
injuries including a fracture. 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 petitioner and the defacto complainant are ladies. The
counsel submitted that it is a case and counter case. Both
sides sustained injuries. The counsel submitted that the
petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants
her bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
The Public Prosecutor takes me through the First Information
Statement given by the victim and also the wound certificate.
The Public Prosecutor submitted that the injury sustained to
the victim is very serious. But, as per the report received by
2025:KER:26330
the Public Prosecutor, no criminal antecedents are alleged
against the petitioner.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that some
serious injuries are sustained to the victim. But, it is a case
and counter case. There are two versions about the same
incident. Which version is correct cannot be decided, while
considering a bail application. Considering the facts and
circumstances of this case, I think the petitioner can be
released 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.
2025:KER:26330
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.
"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:26330
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.
2025:KER:26330
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/her
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
2025:KER:26330
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
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)
and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].
7. The observations and
findings in this order is only for the purpose
of deciding this bail application. The
principle laid down by this Court in Anzar
Azeez v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine
KER 1260] is applicable in this case also.
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 the bail is
2025:KER:26330
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
