Kerala High Court
Roopak C vs State Of Kerala on 3 November, 2025
Author: K.Babu
Bench: K. Babu
B.A.No.12410 of 2025 1
2025:KER:82778
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 12410 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1204/2025 OF Thampanoor Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 20.09.2025 IN CRMC NO.2651 OF
2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT/ RENT CONTROL
APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
ROOPAK C., AGED 25 YEARS, S/O CHANDRA KUMAR,
RESIDING AT TC 28/1258, PANDIAN NIVAS, METTUKADA,
THYCAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JITHIN S.
SMT.TINCY MARIA SCARIA
SHRI.ABHILASH N.
SHRI.DEEPAK G.B.
SHRI.ROLDEX R.
SHRI.HASHMI V.Z.
SHRI.GOUTHAM V.Z.
SHRI.GOKUL P.RAJ
SHRI.SREEROOP GOVIND
B.A.No.12410 of 2025 2
2025:KER:82778
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE
THAMPANOOR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.12410 of 2025 3
2025:KER:82778
K.BABU, J.
......................................................
B.A.No.12410 of 2025
...................................................
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
2. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.1204 of 2025
of Thampanoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences
alleged against the petitioner and the other accused are punishable
under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 118(1) and 115(1) r/w Section 3(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case as narrated in Annexure 3 reads
thus:
"On 05.09.2025 at about 3.30 a.m., while the
defacto complainant was sitting on his scooter near a shop
at Kannettumukku Junction, accused Nos.1 and 2 reached
there and attempted to take away the key of his scooter.
When the defacto complainant prevented the same, the 1 st
accused uttered obscene words against him and slapped
on his left cheek, and the 2nd accused caught hold of his
shirt and beat him on his face. Thereafter, the 1st accused,
2025:KER:82778
by using an iron bangle repeatedly hit on his face, head,
neck, right hand, back and chest, and when the defacto
complainant fell down, the accused together kicked him all
over his person. When the friend of the defacto
complainant intervened, the 1st accused fisted him on the
back of his head."
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The case of the petitioner is that, on 05.09.2025, when
he, along with his friend, reached the place of occurrence, after
participating in the preparation for the Onam celebration at a club
located 300 meters away, they saw a commotion in the locality and
they rushed to the scene. In the incident, the friend of the petitioner
sustained a head injury. According to the petitioner, he only pacified
a fighting group and he has not committed any acts as alleged.
6. Having regard to the circumstances brought out, I am of
the view that the mens rea of the petitioner in the commission of
offence is doubtful.
7. While considering the scope of jurisdiction under Section
438 Cr.P.C., the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Gurbaksh
2025:KER:82778
Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565]
held thus:
"31. In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed
accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering
the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the
object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by
having him arrested, a direction for the release of the
applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally
be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely,
considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking
advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee
from justice, such an order would not be made. But the
converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. That
is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that
anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed
accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and,
equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is
no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several
other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, the
combined effect of which must weigh with the court while
granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and
seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the
events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a
reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not
being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that
witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests
2025:KER:82778
of the public or the State" are some of the considerations
which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an
application for anticipatory bail. The relevance of these
considerations was pointed out in State v. Captain Jagjit
Singh [AIR 1962 SC 253 : (1962) 3 SCR 622 : (1962) 1 Cri
LJ 216] , which, though, was a case under the old Section
498 which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the
Code. It is of paramount consideration to remember that
the freedom of the individual is as necessary for the
survival of the society as it is for the egoistic purposes of
the individual. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a
free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is
willing to submit to restraints on his freedom, by the
acceptance of conditions which the court may think fit to
impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested,
he shall be enlarged on bail."
8. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra [(2011) 1 SCC 694] the Apex Court held thus:-
"113. Arrest should be the last option and it should be
restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the
accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that
case. The court must carefully examine the entire available
record and particularly the allegations which have been directly
attributed to the accused and these allegations are
corroborated by other material and circumstances on record."
2025:KER:82778
(In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2020) 5 SCC 1]) the
declaration of law in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre that no
condition can be imposed while granting order of anticipatory bail
alone was overruled).
9. In Sushila Aggarwal, the Constitution Bench of the
Apex Court, following the decision in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, held
that while considering an application (for grant of anticipatory bail)
the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the
person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation,
or tampering with evidence (including intimidating witnesses),
likelihood of fleeing justice (such as leaving the country), etc.
10. In the result, the Bail Application is allowed as follows:
(a) The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on 17.11.2025 between
10.00 AM and 11.00 AM for interrogation.
(b) The Investigating Officer is directed to release
the petitioner on bail, in the event, he is arrested,
on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
2025:KER:82778
Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for
the like sum.
(c) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses
in this case or tamper with the evidence.
(d) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the
investigation, including subjecting himself to
`deemed custody', as observed in Gurbaksh
Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab [(1980)
2 SCC 565] and Sushila Aggarwal & Others v.
State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. (AIR 2020 SC
831), for the purpose of discovery or identification,
if any.
Sd/-
K.BABU,
JUDGE
sp/03/11/2025
2025:KER:82778
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 12410/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
IN CRIME NO. 1204/20205 ON THE FILES OF
THAMPANOOR POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure 2 THE MEDICAL RECORDS OF THE FRIEND OF
PETITIONER, WHO IS ALLEGED AS THE 2ND
ACCUSED IN THIS CASE
Annexure 3 THE FREE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
20.09.2025 IN CRL M.C NO. 2651/2025 ON THE
FILES OF COURT OF SESSION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
