RANEESH v. STATE OF KERALA

B.A.No.4969 of 2025 1 2025:KER:30675 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1947** **BAIL APPL. NO. 4969 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.1068/2024 OF Poochakkal Police Station, Alappuzha** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMC NO.351 OF 2025 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1:** **RANEESH AGED 36 YEARS S/O NAZAR PONNANCHERIL VADUTHALA JETTI P.O AROOKUTTY PANCHAYATH CHERTHALA, PIN - 688535** **BY ADVS. MANU HARSHAKUMAR RAPHAEL THEKKAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:** **STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** **BY ADVS. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11)** B.A.No.4969 of 2025 2 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30675 ## **BY ADV. SR PP- NOUSHAD K A** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.4969 of 2025 3 2025:KER:30675 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.4969 of 2025 ------------------------------- Dated this the 09th day of April, 2025 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.1068 of 2024 of Poochakkal Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner and another alleging offences punishable under Sections 332(b), 118(1), 118(2), 115(2), 351, 3(5) & 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'). 3. The prosecution case is that, on 25.12.2024 there occurred an altercation between the deceased and his wife Reneesha regarding the posting of comment on the photographs of Reneesha and her friends in Instagram. The deceased Riyas assaulted his wife which was informed to the B.A.No.4969 of 2025 4 2025:KER:30675 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** accused, who are the brother and father of Reneesha. Thereafter in prosecution of the common intention of both accused, to kill Riyas, who is the brother-in-law of the 1st accused and the son-in-law of the 2nd accused, reached at the house of one Nebu, a friend of deceased. The 1st accused beat the deceased with a cricket stump and when he fell down, beat on his face and body. The 2nd accused kicked him and threatened the inmates of the house showing a chopper. The 1st accused beat the deceased using a stick and the 2nd accused shouted and encouraged to kill the victim. The 1st accused took the chopper from the 2nd accused and dragged the deceased to the courtyard and hacked on his head and other parts of the deceased. The victim succumbed to the injuries. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said offences. 4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was arrested on 26.12.2024. The 2nd accused is already released on bail by this Court as per Annexure-1 order. The final report is already filed. In such circumstances, I think the continued detention of the petitioner is not necessary. It is true that the B.A.No.4969 of 2025 5 2025:KER:30675 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** main overt act is attributed to the 1st accused. But the petitioner was in custody from 26.12.2024. Therefore, I think the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. 5. 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. 6. 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 B.A.No.4969 of 2025 6 2025:KER:30675 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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 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) ## 7. 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 B.A.No.4969 of 2025 7 2025:KER:30675 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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".” 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 B.A.No.4969 of 2025 8 2025:KER:30675 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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 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 B.A.No.4969 of 2025 9 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30675 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** DM