✦ High Court of India · 07 Apr 2025

BY AD vs R.REJI

Case Details High Court of India · 07 Apr 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
07 Apr 2025
Bench
P V KUNHIKRISHNAN
Length
1,217 words

Cited in this judgment

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690101 BY ADV.: SR PP - NOUSHAD K A THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BA No.4447 of 2025 3 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- BA No.4447 of 2025 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 07th day of April, 2025 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

2. Petitioners are accused in Crime No.160/2025 of Mavelikkara Police Station, Alappuzha. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 85, 74 and 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The defacto complainant in this case is the wife of the 3rd petitioner.

3. The prosecution case is that the marriage between the defacto complainant and the 3rd petitioner/accused was solemnized on 24.04.2023. BA No.4447 of 2025 4 Thereafter, she has been residing in her matrimonial house. The 1st and 2nd petitioners are the father-in- law and mother-in-law of the defacto complainant. It is alleged that there is mental and physical harassment from the petitioners towards the defacto complainant. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

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

5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegation against the petitioners are not correct. The counsel also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court, if this Court grant them bail.

6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true BA No.4447 of 2025 5 that very serious allegations are there in the First Information Statement against the petitioners. But, the fact remains that it is a matrimonial dispute. Admittedly, matrimonial disputes are pending before the Family Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, the petitioners can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.

8. 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 BA No.4447 of 2025 6 trial. 9 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 BA No.4447 of 2025 7 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.”

10. 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. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decisions and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following conditions:

1. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks today and shall undergo interrogation.

2. After interrogation, if the Investigating BA No.4447 of 2025 8 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) 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 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. BA No.4447 of 2025 9

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 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.

7. Needless to mention, it would be within the powers of the investigating officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, BA No.4447 of 2025 10 given by the petitioners even while the petitioners are 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].

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

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690101 BY ADV.: SR PP - NOUSHAD K A THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BA No.4447 of 2025 3 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- BA No.4447 of 2025 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 07th day of April, 2025 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

2. Petitioners are accused in Crime No.160/2025 of Mavelikkara Police Station, Alappuzha. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 85, 74 and 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The defacto complainant in this case is the wife of the 3rd petitioner.

3. The prosecution case is that the marriage between the defacto complainant and the 3rd petitioner/accused was solemnized on 24.04.2023. BA No.4447 of 2025 4 Thereafter, she has been residing in her matrimonial house. The 1st and 2nd petitioners are the father-in- law and mother-in-law of the defacto complainant. It is alleged that there is mental and physical harassment from the petitioners towards the defacto complainant. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

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

5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegation against the petitioners are not correct. The counsel also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court, if this Court grant them bail.

6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true BA No.4447 of 2025 5 that very serious allegations are there in the First Information Statement against the petitioners. But, the fact remains that it is a matrimonial dispute. Admittedly, matrimonial disputes are pending before the Family Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, the petitioners can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.

8. 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 BA No.4447 of 2025 6 trial. 9 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 BA No.4447 of 2025 7 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.”

10. 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. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decisions and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following conditions:

1. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks today and shall undergo interrogation.

2. After interrogation, if the Investigating BA No.4447 of 2025 8 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) 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 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. BA No.4447 of 2025 9

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 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.

7. Needless to mention, it would be within the powers of the investigating officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, BA No.4447 of 2025 10 given by the petitioners even while the petitioners are 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].

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

Find similar cases Start drafting free
This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments