SHAJI L v STATE OF KERALA & STATION HOUSE OFFICER EZHUKONE POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

**==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:30218 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4901 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.548/2025 OF EZHUKONE POLICE STATION, KOLLAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ## **`SHAJI L`** ``` AGED 52 YEARS, S/O LEKSHMANAN SS VILLA, CHARUVILA THODIYIL VEEDU, NEAR RADIO PARK, EDAVATTOM P.O., THURUTHELMUKKU, PAVITHRESWARAM, KOLLAM, PIN – 691 505. ``` ``` BY ADVS. N.ANAND RAJESH O.N. ROY ANTONY AMEER SALIM ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031.`** - **`2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER EZHUKONE POLICE STATION KOLLAM, PIN – 691 505.`** ## **`BY ADV HRITHWIK C S, SR PP`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:30218 ``` B.A No.4901 of 2025 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------B.A.No.4901 of 2025** **------------------------------Dated this the 8[th] day of April, 2025** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.548 of 2025 of Ezhukone Police Station, Kollam. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 115(2), 118 (1), 110 and 351 (3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (for short’BNS’). 3.The prosecution case is that there was a dispute between the defacto complainant and the accused, who is a contractor of building materials regarding the non-supply of construction materials to the defacto complainant. On 25.03.2025, at 00:45 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** `2025:KER:30218` B.A No.4901 of 2025 3 hours in the morning, the accused, with intent to cause death of the defacto complainant, uttered obscene words towards the defacto complainant and pulled his shirt. When the defacto complainant tried to evade, the accused took a key chain from his pocket and opened a knife from the keychain and stabbed the defacto complainant forcefully on the neck. Although the defacto complainant attempted to defend himself with his hands, the knife inflicted a deep wound on the left side of the neck, below the ear. If the defacto complainant had not defended the stab on his neck, it could have led to his death. Thereafter, the accused repeatedly stabbed the defacto complainant on the right side of his chest, below the left shoulder and the muscle area on the back. Thereafter, the accused kicked the defacto complainant on his stomach and threatened to kill **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:30218 ``` B.A No.4901 of 2025 4 him by brandishing the knife. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 26.03.2025. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. 6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the report received by him, no criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioner. 7. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is serious. But the fact remains that the petitioner is in custody from 26.03.2025. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioners is not necessary. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:30218 ``` B.A No.4901 of 2025 5 stringent conditions. 8. 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. 9. 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 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:30218 ``` B.A No.4901 of 2025 6 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 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) ## 10. 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 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:30218` ## B.A No.4901 of 2025 7 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".” 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 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:30218` B.A No.4901 of 2025 8 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 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. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:30218 ``` ## B.A No.4901 of 2025 9 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 B.A No.4901 of 2025 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:30218 ``` 10 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