Muhammed Faizal v. State of Kerala

``` 2025:KER:29777 ``` **==> picture [58 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. 4577 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.273/2025 OF Ottapalam Police Station, Palakkad ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` MUHAMMED FAIZAL AGED 30 YEARS S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY T.P, THANIKKAPADI HOUSE, SRK NAGAR, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679103 ``` ## **`BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW`** ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI., PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`SR PP-NOUSHAD K A`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4577 OF 2025 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29777 ``` `2` **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------B.A.No.4577 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 the accused in Crime No.273/2025 of Ottappalam Police Station, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 118(1), 351(3) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 3. The prosecution case is that; on 17.03.2025 at 06.40 pm., while the defacto complainant was traveling in a motor cycle, the accused came behind him and after overtaking his vehicle wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and using a churika knife tried to stab on the chest of the defacto complainant to which he evaded and the same resulted in injuries on the right hand shoulder and the right underarms and also in the backside of the left palm. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29777 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4577 OF 2025 ``` `3` 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the father of the petitioner was attacked by the defacto complainant and Annexure-2 is the OP Ticket of the father issued from the hospital. It is submitted that to withdraw the above case, the defacto complainant attacked the petitioner, when the petitioner was traveling in a motor cycle. The counsel also submitted that the incident is not happened as alleged by the prosecution. 6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, he conceded that, as per the report received by him from the Investigating Officer, no criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioner. He submitted that serious injuries sustained to the victim. 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 and the injured sustained very serious injuries. But, the fact remains **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29777 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4577 OF 2025 ``` `4` that the petitioner is in custody from 17.03.2025. No criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioner. 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: “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 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:29777` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4577 OF 2025 ``` ``` 5 ``` 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 ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4577 OF 2025 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29777 ``` `6` 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 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29777 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4577 OF 2025 ``` `7` 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 acquainted with the facts of the case so as ``` 2025:KER:29777 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4577 OF 2025 ``` `8` to dissuade him 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. 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 ``` 2025:KER:29777 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.4577 OF 2025 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** `9` approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above conditions. **Sd/P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SSG