B.A No.4505 of 2025, In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

**==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:28424` **`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. 4505 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.185/2025 OF ALOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.03.2025 IN CRMC NO.412 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR ``` ``` PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 & 4(IN CUSTODY) (2ND ACCUSED ARRESTED ON 19.02.2025 & 4TH ACCUSED ARRESTED ON 25.02.2025): ``` - **`1 MUHAMMED SHAHIN AGED 18 YEARS, S/O ABDUL KABEER, ILLATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELLANCHIRA DESOM, ALOOR VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY TALUK,VELLANCHIRA P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 697.`** - **`2 AMAL`** - **`AGED 20 YEARS, S/O SOMAN, PARAMBIL HOUSE, THAZHEKKAD DESOM, THAZHEKKAD VILLAGE, THAZHEKKAD P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 697.`** ``` BY ADVS. R.T.PRADEEP M.BINDUDAS NIRANJAN T. PRADEEP ``` ``` 2025:KER:28424 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** B.A No.4505 of 2025 2 ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** ``` THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,, PIN – 682 031. ``` ``` 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:28424 ``` B.A No.4505 of 2025 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **--------------------------------------B.A. No.4505 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 2[nd] and 4[th] accused in Crime No.185 of 2025 of Aloor Police Station, Thrissur. The above case is registered against the petitioners and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 333, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 110, 296(b), 351(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (for short’BNS’). 3.The prosecution case is that the petitioners and others, on 18.02.2025 at 05:50 hours, due to previous enimity against the defacto complainant, since he protested against abuse of Narcotic **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28424 ``` ## B.A No.4505 of 2025 4 Substance by the accused, accused Nos.1 to 5 formed an unlawful assembly. Accused Nos.1 and 2 uttered obscene words and tresspassed into the kitchen, wherein the defacto complainant is working. The 1[st] accused beating him with an iron rod and other accused persons assaulted the defacto complainant on various part of his body. It is alleged that the victim sustained injuries. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 5. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are youngster. They are in custody from 19.02.2025 and 25.02.2025 respectively. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants them bail. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28424 ``` ## B.A No.4505 of 2025 5 6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the report received by him, no criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioners. 7. It is true that the allegation against the petitioners is serious. This Court has to consider the motive for the alleged incident also. But, the fact remains that the petitioners are youngsters aged 18 and 20. They are in custody from 19.02.2025 and 25.02.2025 respectively. No criminal antecedents are alleged against the petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioners can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. There can be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer on every Monday at 10 a.m., till Final Report is filed. 8. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28424 ``` B.A No.4505 of 2025 6 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 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 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28424 ``` ## B.A No.4505 of 2025 7 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 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 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:28424` ## B.A No.4505 of 2025 8 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 for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28424 ``` ## B.A No.4505 of 2025 9 ## 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. 4. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or ``` 2025:KER:28424 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** B.A No.4505 of 2025 10 suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. 5. Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Monday at 10 a.m., till Final Report is filed. 6. 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. 7. 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 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28424 ``` ## B.A No.4505 of 2025 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