Kerala High Court
Madhukumar G vs State Of Kerala on 20 May, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
BAIL APPL. NO. 6076 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:34552
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 6076 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMC NO.601 OF 2025 OF
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.7 TO 9:
1 MADHUKUMAR G, AGED 46 YEARS
S/O P R GOPALAN, KARIKUNNEL (H),
VAKATHANAM P.O, CHANGANACHERRY,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686538.
2 MANOJ KUMAR G, AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. P. R. GOPALAN, KARIKUNNEL (H),
VAKATHANAM P.O, CHANGANACHERRY,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686538.
3 ABYMON ISSAC MATHEW, AGED 29 YEARS
S/O. MATHEW ISSAC, KARIKUNNEL (H),
VAKATHANAM P.O, CHANGANACHERRY,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686538.
ADV NAMITA PHILSON
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VAKATHANAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
SRI. NOUSHAD K. A. (PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.05.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 6076 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:34552
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A. No.6076 of 2025
...................................................
Dated this the 20th day of May, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioners are accused Nos.7 to 9 in Crime No.243/2025 of Vakathanam
Police station, Kottayam. The above case is registered against the
petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 189(1), 189(2),
191(2), 190, 296(b), 351(2), 126(2), 132, 121(1), and 118(1) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case is that on 31-03-2025 at 9.30 p.m., ten accused
formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked the police
personal who were on law and order duty at Panakkalkavu temple in
connection with its annual festival. According to the prosecution, during
the ganamela programme in the above temple, the accused disobeyed
the commands of the police and attacked them by uttering abusive
language, thereby interfereing with official duty of the police. It is further
alleged by the prosecution that the first accused attacked on the right
eyebrow portion of the de facto complainant with an iron object while the
second and third accused beat him and attacked the fourth accused
BAIL APPL. NO. 6076 OF 2025
2025:KER:34552
kicked the police driver. Accused numbers 5 to 10 beat and punched
the Sub Inspector of Police with their hands and the accused thus
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 petitioners submitted that petitioners have
been falsely arrayed as accused and they have no involvement in the
alleged crime. It was submitted that the prosecution allegations are false
and that the entire incident did not occur as alleged by the de facto
complainant. It was further submitted that, by order B.A.No.5008/2025,
this Court had already observed that custodial interrogation was not
necessary in respect of the said case.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted
that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is essential.
7. On a consideration of the rival contentions, this Court noticed that
prosecution was not able to draw any distinction between the petitioner
and the petitioner in B.A.No.5008/2025.
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
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,
BAIL APPL. NO. 6076 OF 2025
2025:KER:34552
and subject to the discretion of the court.
9. 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 petitioners is not required. Further, having regard to
the nature of the offence and the severity of punishment,this Court is
also of the view that petitioners are entitled to be released on pre-arrest
bail.
10. Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following
conditions:
(a) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on
29.05.2025 and shall subject themselves to interrogation.
(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to
arrest the petitioners, then, they shall be released on bail on them
executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only)
each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before the
Investigating Officer.
(c) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and
when required and shall also co-operate with the investigation.
(d) Petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the
witnesses; nor shall they tamper with the evidence.
(e) Petitioners shall not commit any similar offences while they
are on bail.
(f) Petitioners shall not leave India without the permission of the
Court having jurisdiction.
BAIL APPL. NO. 6076 OF 2025
2025:KER:34552
11. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the
jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for
cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance
with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.
sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
AMV/22/05/2025
BAIL APPL. NO. 6076 OF 2025
2025:KER:34552
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 6076/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
DATED 01.04.2025.
ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS OF THE
SECOND PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS OF THE
THIRD PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE A4 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE
SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM, DATED 11.04.2025.
