Kishore Krishnan v. State of Kerala

**==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:28011` **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF APRIL 2025/12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4329 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1484/2024 OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2025 IN BAIL APPL. NO.2536 ``` ``` OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:`** ``` KISHORE KRISHNAN, AGED 24 YEARS, SON OF KRISHNAKUMAR, ‘GEETHA BHAVAN’, KUMARAMKUDI P.O, KOLLAM, PIN – 689 696. ``` ``` BY ADV PEEYUS A.KOTTAM ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031.`** - **`2 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX`** ``` BY ADV NOUSHAD K A, SR PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A No.4329 of 2025 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:28011` 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------** ## **B.A.No.4329 of 2025** ## **------------------------------Dated this the 2[nd] day of April, 2025** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1484 of 2024 of Punalur Police Station, Kollam. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 74, 64(2)(k), 64(2)(m), 64 and 351 (1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (for short ’BNS’) and also under Sections 7, 8, 4(1), 3(a), 6(1), 5(k) and 5(b) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short ‘POCSO Act’). 3. The prosecution case is that on 21.10.2024, when the victim was waiting for bus in the bus stop to go to her school in her school uniform, one auto **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28011 ``` B.A No.4329 of 2025 3 rickshaw came to her side driven by the petitioner and asked her to get into the auto. She alleged that the driver was known to her and she get into the auto. Then, the petitioner told her that he is in love with her and he is ready to marry her. When the victim asked his name, he told her that his name is Rajesh. The petitioner promised the victim to take her for a movie but when they went to the theater it was closed. Then, the petitioner took her to a remote place which look like a forest and taken her into inside forest. The petitioner took a tarpaulin and spread on the floor and asked her to sit on the tarpaulin near to him. Then he kissed on her face and he committed rape on her. The petitioner insisted the victim not to disclose these to anybody. She also alleged that on a prior day, i.e. 12.09.2024, when she was going back to her house, the petitioner came in **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28011 ``` B.A No.4329 of 2025 4 an auto and both of them jointly went to far away place and she alleged that the petitioner did what all the things he has done on 21.10.2024. The victim alleged that she does not remember the vehicle number of the auto rickshaw. It is alleged that since she felt stomach pain, she disclosed about these incident to her friends and on the basis of said allegation, the above crime is registered. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 25.01.2025. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. 6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 7. The petitioner earlier filed a bail application before this Court as B.A. No.2536 of 2025. After hearing both sides in length, this Court was not inclined to grant **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28011 ``` B.A No.4329 of 2025 5 bail, considering the seriousness of the allegation. At that stage, the counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the bail application with liberty to move it again. This Court granted liberty to move a fresh bail application after two weeks. Accordingly, the present bail application is filed. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. But the fact remains that the petitioner is in custody from 25.01.2025. 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 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28011 ``` B.A No.4329 of 2025 6 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 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 ``` 2025:KER:28011 ``` B.A No.4329 of 2025 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 7 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 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 B.A No.4329 of 2025 8 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28011 ``` 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 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28011 ``` ## B.A No.4329 of 2025 9 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. 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 ``` 2025:KER:28011 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** B.A No.4329 of 2025 10 **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 the bail, if there is any violation of the above conditions. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** AMR