Ashiq v State of Kerala and The Station House Officer, Karunagappally Police Station

``` 2025:KER:30774 ``` ``` 1 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4992 OF 2025`** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4992 OF 2025`** ``` CRIME NO.1350/2021 OF Karunagapally Police Station, Kollam ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.3770 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` ASHIQ AGED 23 YEARS S/O ABDUL SALAM, ASHIQ MANSIL, KOZHIKKODU MEKKUM MURI, AYANIVELIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690573 BY ADV RASHEED C.NOORANAD ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690504`** ## **`SR PP-HRITHWIK C S`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 09.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:30774 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4992 OF 2025 ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------B.A. No.4992 of 2025 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 09[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.1350/2021 of Karunagapally Police Station. The above case was charge sheeted and pending as S.C.No.902/2022 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kollam. The above case is charge sheeted alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147 341, 324 and 307 read with Sections 149 and 34 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, BNS). 3. Admittedly the petitioner was released on bail earlier as per Annexure-1 order with following conditions: “1. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to ``` 2025:KER:30774 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4992 OF 2025`** the satisfaction of the Magistrate court concerned. 2. The petitioner shall co-operate with COVID-19 restrictions. 3. The petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence. He shall co-operate with the investigation and shall be available for trial. 4. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigation Officer as and when directed. 5. The petitioner 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. 6. The petitioner shall not involve in any other offence during the currency of bail and any such event, if reported or came to the notice of this Court, the same shall be a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted. Subsequently the petitioner was involved in another case and therefore this Court cancelled bail as per Annexure-2 order. After Annexure-2 order, the petitioner surrendered before the trial court on 19.02.2025 and he is in custody from that day onwards. Hence this bail application is filed. ``` 2025:KER:30774 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4992 OF 2025 ``` ``` 4 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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 19.02.2025 and he is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 6. it is true that the petitioner violated the condition and therefore this Court cancelled the bail as per Annexure-2 order. After Annexure-2 order, the petitioner surrendered before the jurisdictional court on 19.02.2025 and he is in custody from that day onwards. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary. The trial is not concluded even now. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. I make it clear that if the petitioner is involved in similar offence in future, the Investigating Officer is free to file appropriate application for cancellation of bail and if such an application is received, the jurisdictional court is free to pass appropriate orders in that application even though this order is passed by this Court. ``` 2025:KER:30774 ``` ``` 5 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4992 OF 2025`** 7. 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. 8. 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 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 ``` 2025:KER:30774 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4992 OF 2025 ``` ``` 6 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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) ## 9. 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 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 ``` 2025:KER:30774 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4992 OF 2025 ``` ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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".” 10. 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. 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 ``` 8 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:30774` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4992 OF 2025`** 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 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 ``` 2025:KER:30774 ``` ``` 9 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4992 OF 2025`** court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above conditions. sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** jv