Adhithya Babu and Suhail J. Subhan v. State of Kerala and Sub Inspector of Police, Hill Palace Police Station

**==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** # `2025:KER:28478` **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4465 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.138/2025 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, ``` ## **`ERNAKULAM`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2025 IN BAIL APPL. NO.3262 ``` ## **`OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA`** ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:`** - **`1 ADHITHYA BABU AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. BABU, KANNANKERIL VEEDU, NADAMA, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 301.`** - **`2 SUHAIL. J. SUBHAN AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. J. SUBHAN, G 2, 4TH BLOCK, STAR APARTMENTS, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 301.`** ``` BY ADVS. C.P.UDAYABHANU NAVANEETH.N.NATH ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 031.`** - **`2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 301.`** **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28478 ``` B.A No.4465 of 2025 2 ``` BY ADV G SUDHEER, PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:28478 ``` B.A No.4465 of 2025 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **--------------------------------------B.A. No.4465 of 2025** **-------------------------------------Dated this the 3[rd] day of April, 2025** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioners are the 1[st] and 2[nd] accused in Crime No.138 of 2025 of Hill Palace Police Station, Ernakulam. The above case is registered against the petitioners and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 351(2), 324(4), 189(2) and 191(2) r/w 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (for short’BNS’). 3.The prosecution case is that, accused Nos.1 and 2 were riding a Bullet Motor Cycle. It is alleged that the defacto complainant and two others, who were travelling in their car deliberately failed to give their way **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28478 ``` B.A No.4465 of 2025 4 to the accused. Therefore, the accused attacked the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant sustained a loss of Rs.35,000/-, as far as the vehicle is concerned. It is also alleged that the victim sustained grievous hurts. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 5. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners surrendered as directed by this Court on 25.03.2025. 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. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the injured sustained grievous hurt. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the report received by him, no criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioners. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28478 ``` B.A No.4465 of 2025 5 7. Admittedly the petitioners earlier filed an application under Section 482 of BNSS before this Court as B.A No.3262 of 2025. This Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. At that stage, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are ready to surrender before the Investigating Officer. Accordingly, this Court disposed that bail application as per order dated 14.03.2025, directing the petitioners to surrender within a period of two weeks. Accordingly, the petitioners surrendered before the Investigating Officer on 25.03.2025. The petitioners are in custody from that day onwards. 8. It is true that the allegation against the petitioners is serious. But, the fact remains that there is no criminal antecedent to the petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioners can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28478 ``` B.A No.4465 of 2025 6 9. 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. 10. Moreover, in **Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India [2024 KHC 6431]** , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: “21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention here that the Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant's case could not be properly appreciated. When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:28478` B.A No.4465 of 2025 |65 of 2025|65 of 2025| |---|---| |7<br>have any hesitation in granting bail. The|| |<br>allegations of the prosecution may be very|| |<br>serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to|| |<br>consider the case for grant of bail in|| |<br>accordance with the law."Bail is the rule and|| |jail is an exception"is a settled law. Even in a|| |<br>case like the present case where there are|| |<br>stringent conditions for the grant of bail in|| |<br>the relevant statutes, the same rule holds|| |<br>good with only modifcation that the bail can|| |<br>be granted if the conditions in the<br>|statute are| ## 11. In **Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of** ## **Enforcement [2024 KHC 6426]** , also the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: “53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well - settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:28478` ## B.A No.4465 of 2025 8 as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non - grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception".” 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. Petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each ``` 2025:KER:28478 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## B.A No.4465 of 2025 9 for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 3. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. ``` 2025:KER:28478 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** B.A No.4465 of 2025 10 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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 granted by this ``` 2025:KER:28478 ``` B.A No.4465 of 2025 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 11 Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above conditions. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** AMR