Aravind. V v. State of Kerala

**==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:30233 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4372 OF 2025`** ``` 1 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4372 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1557/2024 OF Karunagapally Police Station, Kollam ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.1996 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ``` PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ``` ``` ARAVIND. V AGED 22 YEARS S/O. VIJAYAKUMAR, KRISHNA BHAVANAM, THAZHAVA P. O., KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690523 ``` ``` BY ADVS. RENJITH B.MARAR LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL P.RAJKUMAR KESHAVRAJ NAIR BIJU VIGNESWAR ARUN POOMULLI ABHIRAM.S. GAADHA SURESH T.K.BABU VISWANATH JAYAN AKHILA RADHAKRISHNAN SARIGA RAMACHANDRAN M. AKSHAY SHIBU ``` ``` 2025:KER:30233 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4372 OF 2025 ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE & VICTIM:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX`** ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`SR PP-HRITHWIK C S`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 08.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:30233 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4372 OF 2025 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. --------------------------------** **B.A. No.4372 of 2025** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 08[th] day of April, 2025** ## **`ORDER`** This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1557/2024 of the Karunagapally Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 351(2), 329(4), 65, 75(2), 75(3), 78, 78(1), 78(2) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, BNS) and Sections 4(2), r/w 3(a), 10 r/w 9(1) and 14 r/w 13(b), 13(c) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 3. The gist of the prosecution allegation is that the petitioner developed intimacy with the victim through social media and obtained nude photos of the victim girl, aged 15 yrs, with the intention to sexually assault the victim. It is alleged ``` 2025:KER:30233 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4372 OF 2025 ``` ``` 4 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** that on three subsequent dates, the accused committed trespass in to the house of the victim and threatened the victim by showing her nude photos and then committed rape and penetrative sexual assault on the victim. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 13.01.2025 and he is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. 6. Since the offence under Section 65 of BNS is also included in the FIR, this Court issued notice to the victim through the Investigating Officer. It is submitted that the notice is served. But there is no appearance for the victim. 7. The petitioner earlier filed BA No.1996/2025 for bail. After hearing both sides, this Court was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. At that stage, the counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the bail application with liberty to move it again. This Court granted liberty to ``` 2025:KER:30233 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4372 OF 2025 ``` ``` 5 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** move the bail application after five weeks. Accordingly the present bail application is filed. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is serious. But indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary. The petitioner is aged 22 and the victim is aged 15 years. According to the petitioner, there was a love relationship. I do not want to make any observation about the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the detention period, 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 ``` 2025:KER:30233 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4372 OF 2025 ``` ``` 6 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## 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 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 modifcation that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfed. 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 ``` 2025:KER:30233 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4372 OF 2025 ``` ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## 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 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 ``` 2025:KER:30233 ``` ``` 8 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4372 OF 2025`** sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. 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/her 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 ``` 2025:KER:30233 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4372 OF 2025 ``` ``` 9 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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 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** jv