Sahir Babu v. State of Kerala

``` 2025:KER:27496 ``` ``` 1 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 3909 OF 2025`** ## **`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. 3909 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.138/2025 OF Ollur Police Station, Thrissur ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` SAHIR BABU AGED 18 YEARS S/O KUNJUMUHAMMAD @ BABU , PUTHANPEEDIKA HOUSE,THONNIPPARA DESOM, PUTHOOR VILLAGE, PIN - 680014 BY ADVS. MANUMON A. REBIN VINCENT GRALAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX`** - **`3 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX`** ``` BY ADV Dinesh G Warrier NOUSHAD.K.A. SR PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:27496 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 3909 OF 2025`** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------B.A. No.3909 of 2025 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 01[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.138/2025 of Ollur Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m) & 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, BNS), Sections 4(1), 3(a), 6(1), 5j(ii) & 5I of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 3(2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The prosecution case is that, on two days in the month of June and July, 2024, the accused, with sexual ``` 2025:KER:27496 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 3909 OF 2025`** intent, took the victim aged 17 years to his rented house at Thonippara and committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim and impregnated her. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 24.01.2025 and he is ready to abide any conditions if this Court release him on bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The counsel for the victim submitted that the victim has no objection in granting bail to the petitioner and there is an arrangement between the parties that once the petitioner and victim attain majority, they will marry. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly the petitioner is aged 18 and the victim is aged 17. Now the victim says that she has no objection in granting bail to the petitioner. That itself is not a ground to grant bail to the petitioner. But the petitioner is in custody from 24.01.2025. Considering the period of detention, I think the petitioner can be released on ``` 2025:KER:27496 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3909 OF 2025 ``` ``` 4 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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 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 ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3909 OF 2025 ``` ``` 5 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:27496` 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 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 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 ``` 6 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:27496` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 3909 OF 2025`** 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. 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 ``` 2025:KER:27496 ``` ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 3909 OF 2025`** 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. 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 ``` 2025:KER:27496 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3909 OF 2025 ``` ``` 8 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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** jv