Kiran Joy v. State of Kerala

``` 2025:KER:29826 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 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. 4884 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.335/2024 OF Kanjirappally Police Station, Kottayam ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` KIRAN JOY, AGED 26 YEARS S/O JOY, THONIPLACKAL HOUSE, VELICHIYANI BHAGOM, EDAKUNNAM VILLAGE, PARATHODU P.O,., PIN - 686512 ``` ## **`BY ADV SIJO PATHAPARAMBIL JOSEPH`** ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`PP-G SUDHEER`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4884 OF 2025 ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29826 ``` **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------B.A.No.4884 of 2025 ------------------------------Dated this the 07[th] day of April, 2025** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). 2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.335/2024 of Kanjirapally Police Station, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 332(C ), 74, 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 7, 8, 9(m) & 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, (POCSO Act). 3. The prosecution case is that, the accused with an intention to sexually assault the victim and outrage her modesty, on 11.01.2025, entered the house where the victim and her parents were residing, kissed the victim and touched the neck of the victim through the shirt and further on 15.02.2025, he made a contact with the victim with a sexual intention. **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29826 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4884 OF 2025 ``` `3` 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is in custody from 28.02.2025. 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 the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. There is a chance to intimidate the victim, if he is released on bail. But, he submitted that, investigation is over and the final report is already filed. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegations against the petitioner is very serious. But, the maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offences alleged offences are upto seven years. Petitioner is in custody from 28.02.2025. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioner may not not be necessary. Public Prosecutor submitted that, if the petitioner is released on bail, he will influence the victim. **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29826 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4884 OF 2025 ``` ``` 4 ``` Admittedly, the victim is residing within the Jurisdiction of Kanjirappally village and the petitioner is residing in Edakunnam village. If that is the case, there can be a direction to the petitioner not to enter the Jurisdiction of Kanjirappally Village area till the trial is over. With that condition, bail can be granted. 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 ``` 2025:KER:29826 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4884 OF 2025 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** `5` 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 ``` 2025:KER:29826 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4884 OF 2025 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** `6` 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 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 ``` 2025:KER:29826 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4884 OF 2025 ``` ``` 7 ``` 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. 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 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:29826` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4884 OF 2025 ``` ``` 8 ``` acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade 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. Petitioner shall not enter the Jurisdiction limit of Kanjirappally Village till the trial is concluded. ``` 2025:KER:29826 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4884 OF 2025 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [7 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** 7. 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** SSG