ANANTHU RAJAN v. STATE OF KERALA

B.A.No.4529 of 2025 1 2025:KER:28937 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4529 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.427/2025 OF NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION,** ## **THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.03.2025 IN CRMC NO.804 OF 2025 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 11.03.2025 IN CMP NO.1437 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,NEYYATTINKARA PETITIONER(S)/4TH ACCUSED:** **ANANTHU RAJAN AGED 25 YEARS** **S/O RAJAN, CHARALUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, KOTTAKKONAM, NEAR RC CHURCH, MANGALATHUKONAM, KOTTUKALDESOM, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695501** **BY ADVS. R.GOPAN S.R.SUTHEESHKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** B.A.No.4529 of 2025 2 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28937 **BY ADV. SR PP – SRI. NOUSHAD K A** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.4529 of 2025 3 2025:KER:28937 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.4529 of 2025 ------------------------------- Dated this the 04th day of April, 2025 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime No.427 of 2025 of Neyyattinkara Police Station registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 115(2), 110 & 351(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'). 3. The prosecution case is that, on 04.03.2025 at about 11.15 p.m., accused Nos. 1 to 4 wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, while he was standing alone with his friends in the road margin at Ooruttukala- Ramapuram Road in the Athiyanoor Village, and the 2nd accused uttered abusive words against the defacto complainant and kicked him on his B.A.No.4529 of 2025 4 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28937 chest, and at that time, the defacto complainant fell down. Thereafter, the 1st accused forcefully hit the back side of the head of the defacto complainant on the concrete post, causing deep injuries to the part, and the 3rd accused repeatedly hit on the face and chest of the defacto complainant, and when the defacto complainant fell down, the 4th accused kicked him on his stomach. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said offences. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the 4th accused and he is in custody from 05.03.2025. It is a case and counter case. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grants him bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The petitioner is in B.A.No.4529 of 2025 5 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28937 custody from 05.03.2025. He is the 4th accused. Even as per the prosecution case, the allegation is that the petitioner restrained the defacto complainant and kicked on his stomach. The main overt act is attributed to the other accused. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail 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. 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 B.A.No.4529 of 2025 6 2025:KER:28937 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 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 have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. "Bail is the rule and jail is an exception" is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Art.21 of our Constitution.” (underline supplied) 10. 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 B.A.No.4529 of 2025 7 2025:KER:28937 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 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 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".” 11. 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. Petitioner 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 jurisdictional Court. B.A.No.4529 of 2025 8 2025:KER:28937 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner 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. 3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. 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. 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** B.A.No.4529 of 2025 9 2025:KER:28937 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also. 6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this 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** DM