Raveen @ Sankar and Midhun v. State of Kerala

BAIL APPL. NO. 4456 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:28509 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947** **BAIL APPL. NO. 4456 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.281/2025 OF Nemom Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **1 RAVEEN @ SANKAR AGED 24 YEARS S/O VENUGOPAL, TC 49/2459, NEAR NEDIYAVILA POLICE QUARTERS, NEMOM WARD, NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-., PIN - 695042** **2 MIDHUN AGED 24 YEARS** **S/O MURUKAN, CHANDRAKALA HOUSE, SVRA 226 B, AKN ROAD, SANTHIVILA DESOM, KULAKKUDIYOOR DESOM, KALLIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-., PIN - 695042** **BY ADVS. R.SUNIL KUMAR A.SALINI LAL JINU P. BINU** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031** BAIL APPL. NO. 4456 OF 2025 2 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28509 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **PP-G SUDHEER** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 4456 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:28509 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **–-------------------------------------** **B.A. No. 4456 of 2025** **-------------------------------------Dated this the 3[rd] day of April, 2025** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 281/2025 of Nemom Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 3. The prosecution case is that, on 26.02.2025 at 9.30 pm, the 2[nd] accused fisted on the back of the 1[st] informant and wrongfully restrained him. It is alleged that the 4[th] accused kicked on the abdomen of the 1[st] informant BAIL APPL. NO. 4456 OF 2025 4 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28509 and when the 1[st] informant attempted to flee from the place of occurrence in the bike, accused Nos. 1 to 3 pushed him down and kicked him and thereafter, the accused No.1 attempted to hit on the nose of the 1[st] informant with a punching bar. It hit on the head of the 1[st] informant and caused injury. Thereafter, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 assaulted the 1[st] informant. The accused No.3 hit on the body of the 1[st] informant with an object covered with dhothi. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are in custody from 27.02.2025. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant them bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, the Public BAIL APPL. NO. 4456 OF 2025 5 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28509 Prosecutor submitted that as far as the 1[st] petitioner is concerned, he has got criminal antecedents. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that there is criminal antecedents to the 1[st] petitioner. But, the fact remains that the petitioners are in custody from 27.02.2025. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, continued detention of the petitioners is not necessary. The petitioners can be released on bail, after imposing stringent conditions. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4456 OF 2025 6 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28509 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4456 OF 2025 7 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28509 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4456 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:28509 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** following directions: 1. Petitioners 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 petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners 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 dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 3. Petitioners shall not leave BAIL APPL. NO. 4456 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:28509 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are 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 of the above any conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail BAIL APPL. NO. 4456 OF 2025 10 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28509 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 violation of the above any conditions. **Sd/P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SKS