1. This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ( for short 'BNSS').

2. Petitioner herein is the 2nd accused in Crime No.1096/2025 of Kuttipuram Police Station, Malapuram, registered for the offences punishable under Section 305(e) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'), Sections 20 and 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, and Section 132 r/w 179 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. The prosecution case discernible from Annexure A2 order is as follows:

                  On 12.11.2025, at about 3.20 A.M., at Rangatoor, the accused No.1 was found transporting river sand without permit in a Lorry bearing Registration No.KL-45B/3744 from Thirunavaya side to Kuttippuram side. When the defacto complainant signaled to stop the vehicle, accused No.1 did not stop the vehicle, the defacto complainant followed him, and arrested him, and in furtherance of the common intention of the accused persons to commit the offence, accused No.2 provided escort to the lorry in a car bearing Registration No. KL-07-CK/0493. Thus, the accused allegedly committed the above offences.

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

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, accused No.1 was already granted regular bail by this Court as per order dated 01.12.2025 in B.A. No.14063 of 2025. The petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged, and he is ready to cooperate with the investigation.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is having two other criminal antecedents of similar nature and hence the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the bail application as per Annexure A2 order.

7. 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 [(2020) 13 SCC 791] after considering the earlier judgments on the point, observed that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same in as much 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.

8. The Apex Court in Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2021 (5) KHC 353] held as under:

                  "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."

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case in the light of the principles regarding bail as noted in the above-mentioned judgments, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:

                  1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation.

                  2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for 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 cooperate 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 or her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the investigating 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.

                  6. 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 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. It is made clear that if any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the prosecution is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail, in accordance with law.