NOUFEEL v. STATE OF KERALA

2025:KER:27499 **BAIL APPL. NO. 4039 OF 2025** **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **-1-** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947** **BAIL APPL. NO. 4039 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.132/2025 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR** **PETITIONER/1STACCUSED:** **NOUFEEL, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O NOUSHAD, PANIKKAVEETTIL HOUSE, TENSE NAGAR, MANNUTHY DESOM, VELLANIKKARA VILLAGE, MADAKKATHRA P.O., THRISSUR, PIN-680651** **BY ADVS. VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN B.ANUSREE SREELAKSHMI B. ABDUL FATHAH NOYAL JOHNY** ## **RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682031** **SRI.NOUSHAD K.A., SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2025:KER:27499 **BAIL APPL. NO. 4039 OF 2025** **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **-2-** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **-----------------------------------------B.A.No.4039 of 2025 -----------------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of April, 2025** ## **ORDER** This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.132/2025 of Irinjalakkuda Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 333, 115(2), 118(1), 110 r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Petitioner was arrested on 27.01.2025 and he is in custody. 3. The prosecution case is that on 20.01.2025 at about 6.45 a.m., the petitioner along with the 2[nd] accused trespassed into the house of the de-facto complainant, thrown chilly-powder on his face and 2025:KER:27499 **BAIL APPL. NO. 4039 OF 2025** **-3-** **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** assaulted him with an iron pipe. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 27.01.2025. He also submitted that the investigation is not over and he is entitled to statutory bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is not over. That is the case, the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail. 7. 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 2025:KER:27499 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **BAIL APPL. NO. 4039 OF 2025** **-4-** exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. 8. 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 2025:KER:27499 **BAIL APPL. NO. 4039 OF 2025** **-5-** **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. 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) ## 9. 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 2025:KER:27499 **BAIL APPL. NO. 4039 OF 2025** **-6-** **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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".” 10. 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. 2025:KER:27499 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **BAIL APPL. NO. 4039 OF 2025** **-7-** 2. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall cooperate 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 them 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 they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. 5. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even 2025:KER:27499 **BAIL APPL. NO. 4039 OF 2025** **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 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** bpr 2025:KER:27499 **BAIL APPL. NO. 4039 OF 2025** **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **-9-** ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 4039/2025** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES** **Annexure-I TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 20.01.2025 IN CRIME NO. 132/2025 OF IRINJALAKKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR** **Annexure-II** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.03.2025 IN CRL. MC 275/2025 OF THE HONOURABLE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR**