Shib Behadur Chhetri v. State of Kerala and Station House Officer, Perumbavoor Police Station

BAIL APPL. NO. 4445 OF 2025 1 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28511 # **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. 4445 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.1870/2024 OF Perumbavoor Police Station, Ernakulam** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SHIB BEHADUR CHHETRI AGED 52 YEARS S/O. DURGA BAHADUR CHHETRI, 20/8, C.R. DAS ROAD, DHOPGHATI, BERHAMPORE, MURSHIDABAD, BERHAMPORE, WEST BENGAL., PIN - 742101** **BY ADVS. K.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ BIBIN MATHEW P.M.MATHEW AMARNATH R LAL SANALDEV E.P. VISHNUMAYA ANANDAN SONYMON ANTONY AJMAL V. KARIM** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682031** - **2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 673542** BAIL APPL. NO. 4445 OF 2025 2 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28511 **BY ADVS. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11)** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **C K SURESH SR PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 4445 OF 2025 3 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28511 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **–-------------------------------------** **B.A. No. 4445 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. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.1870/2024 of Perumbavoor Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 3. The prosecution case is that, on 30.11.2024 at about 7 am, the accused stabbed his wife till her death due to animosity against her that she had illicit relationship with charge witness No.6. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the BAIL APPL. NO. 4445 OF 2025 4 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28511 ## Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is not correct. According to the counsel, CW6 – Ratan Haldar was maintaining an illicit relationship with the wife of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the deceased wife of the petitioner was absconded few months ago and she returned just few days before the alleged date of occurrence. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is not correct. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the final report is already filed and the case is in its committal stage. The Public Prosecutor submitted that if this Court grants him bail, he may not be available for trial because he is from the State of West Bengal. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to offer local sureties from Ernakulam District and the same is recorded. I also record that this is not an order BAIL APPL. NO. 4445 OF 2025 5 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28511 from the Court, but this is a voluntary submission by the counsel for the petitioner. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. But, the fact remains that the petitioner is in custody from 30.11.2024. The investigation is already over and the final report is filed. The case is now at the committal stage. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the petitioner 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4445 OF 2025 6 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28511 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4445 OF 2025 7 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28511 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4445 OF 2025 8 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28511 following directions: 1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. The petitioner submits that he is ready to offer local sureties from Ernakulam District. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4445 OF 2025 9 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28511 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 of the above any conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail BAIL APPL. NO. 4445 OF 2025 10 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28511 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** SKS