DEEPU N.B. and ADARSH DEEPU v. STATE OF KERALA

**==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:29846` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN`** ``` MONDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4880 OF 2025`** ``` CRIME NO.219/2025 OF Pallikkathode Police Station, Kottayam AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2025 IN CMP NO.1033 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,KANJIRAPPALLY ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 21.03.2025 IN CRMC NO.492 OF 2025 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:`** - **`1 DEEPU N.B. AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN, SANDHYA NIVAS, AMBATTUPADI BHAGOM, VAZHOOR P. O. KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 504.`** - **`2 ADARSH DEEPU AGED 18 YEARS, S/O. DEEPU N.B., SANDHYA NIVAS, AMBATTUPADI BHAGOM, VAZHOOR VILLAGE. KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 504.`** ``` BY ADVS. NOBLE MATHEW KUMARI SANGEETHA S.NAIR DEEPA NOBLE ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031. ``` ``` BY ADV NOUSHAD K A, SR PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A No.4880 of 2025 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:29846` 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------** ## **B.A.No.4880 of 2025** **------------------------------Dated this the 7[th] 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 accused in Crime No.219 of 2025 of Pallikkathode Police Station, Kottayam. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 296(b), 351(2), 126(2), 118(2), 109 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (for short’BNS’). 3. The prosecution case is that on 06.03.2025, the petitioners attacked the informant, who was near a pan shop. It is alleged that the 1[st] petitioner hit the informant with a wooden log and the 2[nd] petitioner twisted the said arm of the victim. It is also alleged **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29846 ``` B.A No.4880 of 2025 3 that the accused inflicted injuries also and the victim sustained grievous hurt. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 5. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in custody from 06.03.2025. The incident is not happened as alleged by the prosecution. The 1[st] accused also sustained injury. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants them bail. 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. This Court considered the contention of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegations against the petitioners are serious. But, the petitioners are in custody from 06.03.2025. Indefinite **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29846 ``` B.A No.4880 of 2025 4 incarceration of the petitioners is not necessary. No criminal antecedents are also alleged against the petitioners. 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: **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:29846` ## B.A No.4880 of 2025 5 “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) ``` 2025:KER:29846 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** B.A No.4880 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".” 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 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29846 ``` B.A No.4880 of 2025 7 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. 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 ``` 2025:KER:29846 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## B.A No.4880 of 2025 8 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 suspected, of the commission of which they are 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. **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:29846` ## B.A No.4880 of 2025 9 6. 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 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