Prabin K.P. v. State of Kerala

``` 2025:KER:29152 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4867 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.158/2025 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN BAIL APPL. NO.3411 OF 2025 ``` ``` OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:`** ``` PRABIN K.P. AGED 32 YEARS, S/O RAMANANDHAN, KAPPIL THODI HOUSE, ELANKOOR POST, PELEPURAM, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676 122. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SIDHARTH O. ANWIN JOHN ANTONY SUSANTH SHAJI ALBIN A. JOSEPH NEKHA VARGHESE ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE/INVESTIGATING OFFICER:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031.`** - **`2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER MANJERI POLICE STATION, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN – 676 121.`** ## **`*3 ADDL.R3 SREEKANTH S/O SETHU MADHAVAN, MATHILAKATH HOUSE, VELLARINGAL, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM`** ``` 2025:KER:29152 ``` B.A No.4867 of 2025 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2 ``` [ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 04.04.2025 IN CRL.M.A No.1 OF 2025 IN B.A NO.4867/2025] ``` ``` BY ADV KRISHNAPRIYA SREEKUMAR, FOR ADDL.R3 NOUSHAD K A, SR.PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:29152 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** B.A No.4867 of 2025 3 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------B.A.No.4867 of 2025** ## **------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of April, 2025** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’). 2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.158 of 2025 of Manjeri Police Station, Malappuram. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 85 and 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (for short’BNS’). 3. The above case was originally registered under Section 194 of BNSS. Subsequently, under Sections 85 and 108 of BNS are added. The petitioner was surrendered on 02.02.2025. 4. Prosecution case is that on 30.01.2025, Smt. Vishuja, the wife of the petitioner was found dead by **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29152 ``` B.A No.4867 of 2025 4 hanging at the window of her matrimonial house at Elamkoor. It is alleged that the accused abetted the deceased. 5. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 6. Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised a short point. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 02.02.2025. Even now the investigation is not over. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for statutory bail. 7. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is not complete. 8. Counsel appearing for the defacto complainant seriously opposed the bail application. The counsel submitted that the maximum punishment that can be imposed for Section 108 of BNS is for a term which may extended to 10 years. Therefore, the Investigating Officer **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29152 ``` ## B.A No.4867 of 2025 5 will get 90 days to complete the investigation. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitle for statutory bail. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody from 02.02.2025 and he was remanded from 03.02.2025. Admittedly, 60 days is over, after remand. It is also an admitted fact that, the Final Report is not filed. The question raised by the counsel for the defacto complainant that the statutory period for getting bail in this case is 90 days and not 60 days, is considered by this Court in **Mohammed Sajjid v. State of Kerala** [ B.A No.910 of 2025 ]. Therefore, a detailed discussion on that point is not necessary. I think the petitioner is entitled for statutory bail. 10. 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, **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29152 ``` B.A No.4867 of 2025 6 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. 11. 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 ``` 2025:KER:29152 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** B.A No.4867 of 2025 7 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) ## 12. 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".” **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29152 ``` B.A No.4867 of 2025 8 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 to ``` 2025:KER:29152 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** B.A No.4867 of 2025 9 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 **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 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29152 ``` B.A No.4867 of 2025 10 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