Kerala High Court
Reno Johnson vs State Of Kerala on 24 October, 2025
Author: K.Babu
Bench: K. Babu
2025:KER:79464
B.A.NO.12197 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 12197 OF 2025
CRIME NO.732/2025 OF Hill Palace Police Station, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.09.2025 IN CRMC NO.2549
OF 2025 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
RENO JOHNSON
AGED 24 YEARS
CHAKKALAKKAL KULANGATT HOUSE, EROOR,
THRIPPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682306
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ARJUN S.
SHRI.JINS.P.JOHN
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
SRI.G.SUDHEER -PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:79464
B.A.NO.12197 OF 2025
2
K.BABU, J.
--------------------------------------
B.A No.12197 of 2025
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of October, 2025
ORDER
This is an application filed under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.732/2025
of Hill Palace Police Station. The offences alleged against the
petitioner are punishable under Sections 109(1), 296(b) and 118(2) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
3. The prosecution case is as follows:
The petitioner abused the defacto complainant's friend. The
defacto complainant strongly objected to the act of abusing. The
incident happened on the Prakruthi Lane in Eroor. The petitioner
abused the defacto complainant showering filthy language. He
voluntarily caused hurt to the defacto complainant by means of an
iron hammer. The defacto complainant sustained grievous injuries.
4. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
The present crime has been registered by the police due to
the enmity towards the petitioner. In the year 2021, the petitioner's
2025:KER:79464
B.A.NO.12197 OF 2025
sister was sexually assaulted by a businessman. She filed a
complaint before the Hill Palace Police Station. Due to the influence
of the businessman, no crime was registered on the complaint. The
complaint was escalated to the City Police Commissioner.
Thereafter, a private complaint was filed. The SHO-Hill Palace
Police Station was later compelled to register a crime as per the
directions of the Sessions Court. Thereafter, a counter complaint
was filed against the petitioner's sister and six other unknown
people based on which, another crime was registered. The
petitioner's sister is pursuing legal remedies against the police,
alleging mala fide investigation.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the defacto complainant has no complaint against the
petitioner. An affidavit to that effect has been filed by the defacto
complainant.
6. It is submitted that the mens rea of the petitioner
in the commission of the alleged offences is doubtful. The petitioner
has established a prima facie case for getting the benefits
contained in Section 482 of the BNSS.
7. While considering the scope of jurisdiction under
2025:KER:79464
B.A.NO.12197 OF 2025
Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in
Gurbaksh 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 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 :
2025:KER:79464
B.A.NO.12197 OF 2025
(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 B.A.Nos.5010 of
2021 & Connected cases 40 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."
(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,
2025:KER:79464
B.A.NO.12197 OF 2025
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. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
plea of the petitioner.
11. Having considered the entire circumstances on
the touchstone of the principles discussed above, I am of the view
that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail.
In the result, the Bail Application is allowed as follows:
(a) The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on 05.11.2025 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 of his arrest,
on his executing bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like
sum.
2025:KER:79464
B.A.NO.12197 OF 2025
(c) The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 10 A.M.
and 11 A.M. till the final report is filed.
(d) The petitioner shall not influence the
prosecution witnesses in this case or tamper with the
evidence.
(e) 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
SMF
2025:KER:79464
B.A.NO.12197 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 12197/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CR.NO.732 OF
2025 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION DTD
28.08.2025
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIS IN CR.NO. 732 OF
2025 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION DTD
27.08.2025
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIS DTD 28.12.2021 IN
CR.NO.1624/2021 OF HILL PALACE POLICE
STATION
Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CR.NO.1596/2021
DTD 24.12.2021
Annexure 5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE
SESSIONS COURT- ERNAKULAM IN
CRL.MC.NO.2549/2025 DTD 19.09.2025
Annexure 6 ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE DE
FACTO COMPLAINANT IN CR.NO. 732 OF 2025
OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM DTD 17.10.2025
