O R D E R

This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. Petitioners are the 2^nd and 3^rd accused in Crime No.146 of 2025 of Mulavukad Police Station, Ernakulam. The above case is registered against the petitioners and another alleging offences punishable under Sections 140(3), 126(2) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

3. The prosecution case is that the accused persons purchased cigarette and mineral water from defacto complainant friend's shop at 10:00 p.m., where the defacto complainant asked its price, for this the accused persons got provoked, kidnapped and attacked him. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

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

5. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the only non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 140(3) of BNS. The counsel submitted that the ingredients of the said section is not attracted in this case. It is also submitted that a counter case is also registered as Crime No.259/2025 as evident by Annexure-A2. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants them bail.

6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the report received by him, no criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioners.

7. This Court considered the contention of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. This Court also perused Annexure-A1 FIR and Annexure-A2 FIR. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that there is no criminal antecedent to the petitioners, I think bail can be granted to the petitioners 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 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 OfÏcer 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 ofÏcer 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 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 OfÏcer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogat