Muhsina Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2025)

Muhsina Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both connected bail applications allowed: the petitioners (accused in Crime No. 226/2025) shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks and undergo interrogation; if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest them, they shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer; subject to conditions of continued appearance and co-operation with investigation, no inducement/threat/promise to any person acquainted with the facts, no departure from India without permission of the jurisdictional Court, and no commission of similar offences; the Investigating Officer may investigate and effect recoveries while they are on bail; the jurisdictional Court may cancel the bail on violation of any condition, and the prosecution and victim are at liberty to approach it for cancellation.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, accused in Crime No. 226 of 2025 of Kayamkulam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 132 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are entitled to be released on bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

Court's answer

Although the allegations against the petitioners are very serious, the maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offences alleged is below seven years.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.

Key takeaways

It is a well accepted principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.ratio¶59
The principle laid down by this Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala is applicable to this case as well.ratio¶85
Operative directions: petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks and undergo interrogation; if arrest is proposed thereafter, they are to be released on bail on executing a bond of Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, with further conditions (periodic appearance and co-operation with investigation, no inducement/threat/promise to witnesses, no departure from India without permission of the jurisdictional Court, no commission of similar offences); the Investigating Officer remains free to investigate and effect recoveries while the petitioners are on bail, and the jurisdictional Court (at the instance of the prosecution or victim) may cancel bail if any condition is violated.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common order of the High Court of Kerala (P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J.) dated 04.04.2025 allowing connected Bail Applications Nos. 3290 and 3766 of 2025 filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita by Muhsin, Musina and Arshad, accused in Crime No. 226/2025 of Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha, registered for offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 132 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on the allegation that on 02.02.2025 they used filthy language and assaulted a police officer, the defacto complainant. Bail Appl. No. 3766/2025 was filed against an order dated 04.03.2025 in Bail Appln. No. 2480/2025 of the same Court. The Court held that though the allegations were serious, the maximum punishment for the offences alleged being below seven years, and following the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception (relying on Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement; Siddharth v. State of U.P.; Manish Sisodia v. CBI; Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi); and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala), the petitioners could be released on bail subject to stringent conditions: appearance before the Investigating Officer within two weeks for interrogation, release on arrest upon a bond of Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, co-operation with investigation, no tampering with witnesses, no departure from India without permission, no similar offences, liberty to the Investigating Officer to investigate and effect recoveries, and cancellation of bail by the jurisdictional Court on violation. The Public Prosecutor reported that no criminal antecedents were alleged against the petitioners. Observations were confined to the disposal of the bail applications.

2025:KER:29202

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947

BAIL APPL. NO. 3290 OF 2025

CRIME NO.226/2025 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

MUHSIN
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O ABDUL RASHEED,VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE ,
ARATTUPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
KERALA-, PIN - 690515

BY ADV AJITH GEORGE

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

OTHER PRESENT:

SR PP-NOUSHAD K A

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.04.2025, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL No. 3766/2025, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

BAIL APPL.NOS. 3290 & 3766/2025 2

2025:KER:29202

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947

BAIL APPL. NO. 3766 OF 2025

CRIME NO.226/2025 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2025 IN BAIL APPL.

NO.2480 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1MUHSINA
AGED 20 YEARS
W/O ARSHAD VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE ,
ARATTUPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
KERALA-, PIN - 680562

2ARSHAD
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O IRSHAD , VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE ,
ARATTUPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 690535

BY ADVS.
AJITH GEORGE
P.T.THAJMINA

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

BAIL APPL.NOS. 3290 & 3766/2025 3

2025:KER:29202

OTHER PRESENT:

PP-G SUDHEER

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.04.2025, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL NO.3290/2025, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

BAIL APPL.NOS. 3290 & 3766/2025 4

2025:KER:29202

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

B.A.Nos. 3290 & 3766 of 2025

Dated this the 4^th day of April, 2025

COMMON ORDER

These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. These Bail Applications are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these cases by a common order.

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 226 of 2025 of Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 132 & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').

The prosecution case is that on 02.02.2025,

the accused used filthy language and assaulted a police officer, who is the defacto complainant herein.

Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.

BAIL APPL.NOS. 3290 & 3766/2025 5

2025:KER:29202

The counsel for the petitioners submitted

that the incident is not happened as alleged by the prosecution. Actually, a road traffic accident occurred in which the petitioner in B.A.No.3290/2025 sustained injury. The police officer came there and acted in a negligent manner without taking any proper action. No such incident as alleged is happened is the submission. It is also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.

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 petitioners.

This Court considered the contentions of the

petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegations against the petitioners are very serious. But the maximum punishment that can be imposed for the of f ences alleged are below seven years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioners can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.

BAIL APPL.NOS. 3290 & 3766/2025 6

2025:KER:29202

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 has7. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by this Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also. the opportunity of securing fair trial.

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

BAIL APPL.NOS. 3290 & 3766/2025 7

2025:KER:29202

investigation arises when custodial investigation bec7. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by this Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also.omes 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.7. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by this Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also. (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

BAIL APPL.NOS. 3290 & 3766/2025 8

2025:KER:29202

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.”

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:

The petitioners shall appear before the

Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation.

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) with two solvent

BAIL APPL.NOS. 3290 & 3766/2025 9

2025:KER:29202

sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned.

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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

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.

BAIL APPL.NOS. 3290 & 3766/2025 10

2025:KER:29202

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].

The observations and findings in this

order is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by this Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also.

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

BAIL APPL.NOS. 3290 & 3766/2025 11

2025:KER:29202

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

MSA

BAIL APPL.NOS. 3290 & 3766/2025 12

2025:KER:29202

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3766/2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure 1THE TRUE COPY ORDER IN BAIL APPLN. NO.
2480/2025 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT

BAIL APPL.NOS. 3290 & 3766/2025 13

2025:KER:29202

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3290/2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1THE TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL RECORDS OF THE
PETITIONER