IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 15TH MAGHA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 1002 OF 2025 CRIME NO.74/2025 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

RANJITH R AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. RAJENDRAN REVATHI BHAVAN, NETTARAKONAM DESOM, ANAD P.O. AND VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 695 541.

BY ADV P.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENT/STATE OF KERALA:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031.

HRITHWIK C.S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------

B.A.No.1002 of 2025 -------------------------------

Dated this the 4^th day of February, 2025

O R D E R

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

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.54 of 2025 of Irinjalakkuda Police Station, Thrissur. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 126(2) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and also under Section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

3. The prosecution case is that on

09.11.2024 at 10:30 a.m., the petitioner was taking his daughter as per the order of the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda and when they reached in front of Kollatty temple, the petitioner takes some water and on seeing the same his daughter asked some water by patting on his hand and thereby the water fell on his body. Being infuriated by this and on account of her daughter telling about scolding her by the father on previous occasions to the mother, he beat on her thigh saying that you tell this also to your mother. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

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

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only non-bailable offence alleged is under Section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. The counsel also submitted that since there is dispute regarding the custody of the child, it is a false case foisted against the petitioner.

6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

7. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, there is some disputes regarding the custody of the child. The petitioner was given the interim custody of the child by the Family Court. During this period this alleged incident happened. Admittedly, the petitioner is the father of the child. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Therefore, bail can be granted to the petitioner 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