Saju A.P v. State of Kerala
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- P. V. Kunhikrishnan
- Judgment Date
- 2025-04-09
- Court Decision / Holding
- The bail application is allowed. The petitioner is to be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required, shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional court, shall not commit any offence similar to the offence charged, and shall not enter the Kathirur police jurisdiction for two months. If conditions are violated, the bail can be cancelled by the jurisdictional court. The court notes that the observations in this order are for the purpose of deciding this bail application and the rationale follows established bail jurisprudence, including the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
- Final Disposition
- Bail granted to the applicant subject to specified conditions as detailed in the order.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Saju A.P
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor
- The Station House Officer, Kathirur Police Station, Kannur District
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Cibi Thomas
- • Swarna Thomas
- • Anusree K.
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri KA Noushad, Senior Public Prosecutor
Case Synopsis & Summary
This bail petition arises from Crime No. 48/2025 registered at Kathirur Police Station, Kannur, wherein the petitioner, Saju A.P., is accused of offences under Sections 126(2) and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The petition is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking bail. The police case alleges that on 20.01.2025 the petitioner, a former husband, restrained the complainant, poured petrol on her and attempted to set her ablaze with a lighter, with intent to murder. The petitioner has been in custody since 20.01.2025; the final report is filed. The High Court weighed the gravity of the allegations against the need to ensure a fair trial and the protection of the victim, noting that indefinite incarceration is unnecessary, but safeguards are essential. The court directed that the petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limits of Kathirur Police Station for two months, with a safeguard that if intimidation or attack occurs, the bail can be cancelled by the appropriate court. Relying on established bail jurisprudence—that bail is the rule and jail the exception—the court cited Chidambaram P v. Directorate of Enforcement and subsequent Kerala authority (Jalaluddin Khan, Manish Sisodia, and Anzar Azeez) to justify granting bail with conditions. The order grants bail upon bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, subject to further conditions including appearance before the IO and no travel outside the jurisdiction without permission.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
- Bail is not to be withheld as punishment
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The applicant contends that though the allegations are gravest, he has remained in custody since 20.01.2025 and is prepared to comply with reasonable conditions including non-entry into Kathirur jurisdiction for a limited period and full cooperation with the investigation.
Contentions of Respondents
The Public Prosecutor contends that release on bail may jeopardize the safety of the victim and the integrity of the ongoing investigation; the offences are serious and there is a risk of re-offence, warranting continued custody or stringent conditions.
Cited Precedents (4)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chidambaram P v. Directorate of Enforcement | 2019 (16) SCALE 870 | Positive | Cited to support the proposition that bail is the rule and jail the exception and that the basic jurisprudence favors granting bail to ensure a fair trial. |
| Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India | 2024 KHC 6431 | Positive | Kerala High Court (with reference to Supreme Court view) that courts should grant bail when justified by the case, reinforcing the rule that bail is the norm. |
| Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement | 2024 KHC 6426 | Positive | Cited for the principle that bail should not be withheld as punishment and the Court should avoid unnecessary detention. |
| Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala | 2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260 | Positive | Principle laid down is applicable in this case, supporting the bail grant. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Saju A.P v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.