IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Anil T K, S/o Thampi - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
Bail Appl. No. 4968 of 2025
Decided on : 11-04-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 126(2), 351(2), 115(2), 296(b), 118(1), 118(2) - Bail application - Allegations of grievous hurt against the petitioner, who is accused of assaulting a collection agent and her associate - No prior criminal antecedents against the petitioner - Court emphasizes that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, referencing the Supreme Court's principles on bail. (Paras 1-10)
(B) Bail - Conditions for granting bail - The court imposes stringent conditions for bail, including regular appearances before the Investigating Officer and prohibitions against influencing witnesses. (Paras 8-9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused of assaulting a collection agent and her associate during a cash collection attempt, resulting in injury to the complainant.
Findings of Court:
The court finds that the petitioner can be released on bail under stringent conditions due to the absence of criminal antecedents and the nature of the incident.
Issues: The main issues include the justification for bail in light of the allegations and the absence of prior criminal history.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterates that personal liberty is paramount and that bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons for denial, emphasizing the need for a fair trial.
Result: Bail application allowed with conditions.
ORDER :
This bail application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.504/2025 of Chadayamangalam Police Station, Kollam. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 351(2), 115(2), 296(b), 118(1) and 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
3. The prosecution case is that, when the defacto complainant women, a collection agent of Vanchinad Finance, Vayakkal reached the house of the petitioner/accused on 27.03.2025 at 04.30 PM along with branch manager Rahul for cash collection from the petitioner's mother Latha, the petitioner used abusive words towards the defacto complainant and beat Rahul with a stick and kicked him, and also threatened him. It is also alleged that the petitioner pelted a stone towards them and thereby the defacto complainant sustained injury on her right hand, and in the X-Ray found a hairline fracture on his right index finger. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant came to the house of the petitioner and created a scene and there was a wordy quarrel between them. The incident is not happened as alleged by the prosecution. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court, if this Court grants him bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, he submitted that, as per the report received by him from the Investigating Officer, no criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioner.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that there is grievous hurt to the victim. But, admittedly, the incident happened near the house of the petitioner. No criminal antecedents is also alleged against the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. There can be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10.00 AM, till final report is filed.
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 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 Sis
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; stringent conditions imposed for bail due to the nature of the allegations and absence of prior criminal history.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; serious allegations do not automatically warrant denial of bail, especially in cases with competing narratives.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; custodial interrogation is not necessary if there are no criminal antecedents and the accused cooperates with the investigation.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must prioritize personal liberty unless compelling reasons justify arrest.
Bail is established as the rule and jail as the exception, necessitating the court to grant bail under stringent conditions even for serious allegations.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must ensure that denial of bail is justified, particularly when the maximum sentence is below seven years.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; custodial interrogation must be justified based on necessity.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; custodial interrogation must be justified based on necessity.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail when conditions are met, ensuring fair trial rights.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; arrest must be justified based on necessity and cannot be routine.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.