BY AD vs RAMEEZ NOOH

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4480 OF 2025 CRIME NO.237/2025 OF KOODAL POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 3: 1 2 JINU J, AGED 30 YEARS S/O KUNJAMMA T, JINU BHAVAN, MANJAKALA, MANJAKALA P.O, THALAVOOR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691508 AMAN BABU, AGED 21 YEARS S/O BABU K I, PARATHOTTIL VEEDU NADUKKUNNU, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM, PIN - 689695 BY ADVS. RAMEEZ NOOH AMIN ALI ASHRAF FATHIMA K. DANIC ANTONY SHAFNA SINU RESPONDENT(S)/STATE: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV. SR PP – SRI. NOUSHAD K A THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

08.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4479/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.Nos.4479 & 4480 of 2025 3 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- B.A.No.4479 & 4480 of 2025 ------------------------------- Dated this the 08th day of April, 2025 O R D E R These Bail Applications filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these bail applications by a common order.

2. Petitioners in these bail applications are the accused in Crime No.237/2025 of Koodal Police Station, Pathanamthitta. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 296(b) & 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').

3. The prosecution case is that the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and used filthy languages and assaulted the victim and the victim sustained injuries. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said offences. B.A.Nos.4479 & 4480 of 2025 4

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

5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is not correct. It is a case and counter case. Annexure-A2 is the FIR in the counter case. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant them bail.

6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that, as per the report received by him, no criminal antecedents are alleged against the petitioners. The Public Prosecutor also submitted that Sections 110 and 324(2) of the BNS is also added.

7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioners is serious. But, it is a case and counter case. Annexure-A1 & A2 are the First Information Reports in these two case. There are two versions about the same incident. Which version is correct cannot be decided in a bail application. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, I think these B.A.Nos.4479 & 4480 of 2025 5 bail applications can be allowed on 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 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 B.A.Nos.4479 & 4480 of 2025 6 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 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.

11. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of these cases, these Bail Applications are allowed with the following B.A.Nos.4479 & 4480 of 2025 7 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 inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them B.A.Nos.4479 & 4480 of 2025 8 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. 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 laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].

7. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding B.A.Nos.4479 & 4480 of 2025 9 these bail applications. The principle laid down by this Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in these cases also.

8. 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. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE DM