Badusha v. State of Kerala

``` 2025:KER:26886 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4276 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.51/2025 OF Ernakulam North Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.2782 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` BADUSHA AGED 30 YEARS S/O SUBAIR, CHAKKARAPARAMBU HOUSE, 20/1245C, PALLURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682006 ``` ``` BY ADV K.V.SABU ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` SR PP-NOUSHAD K A ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4276 OF 2025 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26886 ``` ## `2` **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------B.A.No.4276 of 2025 ------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of March, 2025** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). 2. Petitioner is the seventh accused in Crime No.51/2025 of Ernakulam North Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Petitioner was arrested on 13.03.2025 and he is in custody. 3. The prosecution case is that; on 27.01.2025 accused Nos.1 to 4, attacked the complainant's cousin brother Uneesh. The crime was registered on the basis of a statement given by the complainant. According to him, four persons, who were wearing face mask attacked the complainant's cousin brother with an unknown weapon. It is alleged that the petitioner, who is the seventh accused aided ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4276 OF 2025 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:26886` `3` the main accused to identify the victim. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is in custody from 13.03.2025. The police custody is also given and that period is also over. He also submitted that, the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. 6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He submitted that there is one more case registered against the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, that case is already quashed by this Court and the offences alleged were minor offences. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that, the allegations against the petitioner and the other accused are very serious. But, the petitioner is in custody from 13.03.2025. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioner may not be necessary. Considering the facts and circumstances of the **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26886 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4276 OF 2025 ``` `4` 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 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 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:26886` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4276 OF 2025 ``` `5` 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) ``` 2025:KER:26886 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4276 OF 2025 ``` `6` 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 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". **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26886 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4276 OF 2025 ``` `7` 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 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. ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4276 OF 2025 ``` ``` 8 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:26886` 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 court to cancel ``` 2025:KER:26886 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4276 OF 2025 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 9 ``` the bail, if there is any violation of the above conditions. **Sd/P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SSG