BY AD vs T.S.HARIKUMAR

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT: SR PP-HRITHWIK C S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 3952 OF 2025 3 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- B.A.No.3952 of 2025 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2025 ORDER This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.504/2025 of the Sasthancotta Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 296(b), 115(2), 132 and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, BNS).

3. The prosecution case is that, on 14-03- 2025 at

8.40 p.m., when the defacto complainant, the Assistant Police Sub Inspector, Sasthancotta Police Station, who was on duty in connection with the festival of Sree Dharma Kshetram, Sasthancotta, directed the accused to move fast with the ‘Kettukazhcha’ floats. Aggrieved by the same, the accused assaulted the Police Officer is the prosecution case. BAIL APPL. NO. 3952 OF 2025 4

4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the only non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 132 of BNS. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant them bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the report received by him from the Investigating Officer, no criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioners. The Public Prosecutor submitted that it is a case in which a public servant is unnecessarily obstructed by the accused and this Court may not grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the offence alleged against the petitioner is very serious. But it happened in a spur of moment in connection with the festival of a temple. I do not want to make any further observation about the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that there is no criminal antecedent alleged BAIL APPL. NO. 3952 OF 2025 5 against the petitioners, I think the petitioners 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.

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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3952 OF 2025 6 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 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 that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case. BAIL APPL. NO. 3952 OF 2025 7

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 petitioners 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 petitioners, they shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned.

3. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any BAIL APPL. NO. 3952 OF 2025 8 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.

4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

5. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

6. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10 am, till final report is filed.

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, given by the petitioners even while the petitioners are on bail as BAIL APPL. NO. 3952 OF 2025 9 laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].

8. 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.

9. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is 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. JV sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT: SR PP-HRITHWIK C S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 3952 OF 2025 3 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- B.A.No.3952 of 2025 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2025 ORDER This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.504/2025 of the Sasthancotta Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 296(b), 115(2), 132 and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, BNS).

3. The prosecution case is that, on 14-03- 2025 at

8.40 p.m., when the defacto complainant, the Assistant Police Sub Inspector, Sasthancotta Police Station, who was on duty in connection with the festival of Sree Dharma Kshetram, Sasthancotta, directed the accused to move fast with the ‘Kettukazhcha’ floats. Aggrieved by the same, the accused assaulted the Police Officer is the prosecution case. BAIL APPL. NO. 3952 OF 2025 4

4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the only non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 132 of BNS. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant them bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the report received by him from the Investigating Officer, no criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioners. The Public Prosecutor submitted that it is a case in which a public servant is unnecessarily obstructed by the accused and this Court may not grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the offence alleged against the petitioner is very serious. But it happened in a spur of moment in connection with the festival of a temple. I do not want to make any further observation about the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that there is no criminal antecedent alleged BAIL APPL. NO. 3952 OF 2025 5 against the petitioners, I think the petitioners 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.

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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3952 OF 2025 6 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 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 that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case. BAIL APPL. NO. 3952 OF 2025 7

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 petitioners 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 petitioners, they shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned.

3. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any BAIL APPL. NO. 3952 OF 2025 8 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.

4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

5. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

6. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10 am, till final report is filed.

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, given by the petitioners even while the petitioners are on bail as BAIL APPL. NO. 3952 OF 2025 9 laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].

8. 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.

9. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is 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. JV sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE