Kerala High Court
Renju vs State Of Kerala on 4 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BA No.1642 of 2025
1
2025:KER:18264
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1642 OF 2025
CRIME NO.51/2025 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
RENJU
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. RAJAN, SARALA BHAVAN,
UMBERNAD, KALLUMALA PO, MAVELIKARA,
ALAPUZHA, PIN - 690 110
BY ADV V.VIJITHA
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031
2 ADDL. R2. JOLA BABU
D/O.BABU, KAMALADALAM HOUSE, PONNARAMTHOTTA
MURI, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
(IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R2 AS PER ORDER DATED
13.02.2025 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2025)
BY ADV.:
SMT. SEETHA S, SR PP
SRI. ALEX K.JOHN - ADDL. R2
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BA No.1642 of 2025
2
2025:KER:18264
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
BA No.1642 of 2025
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 04th day of March, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime
No.51/2025 of Mavelikara Police Station, Alapuzha.
The above case is registered against the petitioner
alleging offences punishable under Sections 377, 323
and 506 of IPC, Section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and also under
Section 4, 3(a), 3(d), 6, 5(1), 5(m), 5(n) and 8 of
POCSO Act. Now the case is transferred to
Kurathikadu Police Station and the case is re-
BA No.1642 of 2025
3
2025:KER:18264
registered as Crime No.32/2025.
3. The prosecution case is that in December
2022, when the victim was 11 year old and alone at
his father’s ancestral home, petitioner called him to
his room and instructed him to do some sexual
activities. When the victim refused, the petitioner
allegedly assaulted him, causing him to comply out
of fear. The victim further claims that the petitioner
threatened him not to disclose the same. He stated
that these acts occurred five or six times. 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, it is a false case foisted against the petitioner.
A complaint was filed by the victim’s mother against
the petitioner and his brother alleging offences
BA No.1642 of 2025
4
2025:KER:18264
punishable under Section 498A of IPC. That was
registered in May 2023. Annexure-A3 is the FIR. The
final report is filed in that case and the case is
pending before the court concerned. Thereafter, the
present complaint is filed alleging an incident
happened in December 2022. It is submitted that it
is a false case foisted at the instance of the mother
of the victim.
6. The counsel appearing for the defacto
complainant seriously opposed the bail application.
The counsel takes me through the First Information
Statement. The counsel submitted that the
allegation is very serious. The Public Prosecutor also
opposed the bail application.
7. When this bail application came up for
consideration before this Court on 21.02.2025, this
Court passed the following order:
“The petitioner will appear before the
BA No.1642 of 2025
52025:KER:18264
Investigating Officer in Crime No.51/2025 of
Mavelikara Police Station, Alapuzha on
24.02.2025. The Investigating Officer can record
the statement of the petitioner.
The petitioner shall not be arrested till the
next posting date.
Post on 28.02.2025.”
8. Accordingly the statement of the petitioner
was recorded by the Investigating Officer. Now the
Public Prosecutor submitted that further custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary and
there may be a direction to the petitioner to appear
before the Investigating Officer as and when
required. If that be the case, to complete the
formalities, the petitioner can be directed once again
to appear before the Investigating Officer. After
interrogation, if arrest is recorded, there can be
direction to release the petitioner on bail.
9. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle
that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception.
BA No.1642 of 2025
6
2025:KER:18264
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.
10. 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
BA No.1642 of 2025
72025:KER:18264
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.”
11. 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
BA No.1642 of 2025
8
2025:KER:18264
circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is
allowed with the following conditions:
1. The petitioner 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 petitioner, he
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 petitioner shall appear before
the Investigating Officer for interrogation
as and when required. The petitioner shall
co-operate with the investigation and
BA No.1642 of 2025
92025:KER:18264
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.
4. Petitioner shall not leave India
without permission of the jurisdictional
Court.
5. Petitioner shall not commit an
offence similar to the offence of which he
is accused, or suspected, of the
commission of which he is 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
BA No.1642 of 2025
102025:KER:18264
recoveries on the information, if any,
given by the petitioner even while the
petitioner is 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. If any of the above conditions are
violated by the petitioner, the
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
nvj JUDGE