Sony v. State of Kerala

1 **BAIL APPL. NO. 4416 OF 2025** 2025:KER:28514 ## **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. 4416 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.477/2025 OF Irinjalakuda Police Station, Thrissur** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 21.03.2025 IN CMP NO.3095** **OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,IRINJALAKUDA** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SONY AGED 39 YEARS S/O POULOSE, VELAKKANADAN HOUSE, CHALAMPADAM DESOM, MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680751** **BY ADV RAJESH CHAKYAT** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680125** ## **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:** 2 **BAIL APPL. NO. 4416 OF 2025** **==> picture [102 x 62] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> 2025:KER:28514<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **–-------------------------------------** ## **B.A. No.4416 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 the accused in Crime No. 477/2025 of Irinjalakuda Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 110 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 3. The prosecution case is that, on 16.03.2025 at 7.30 pm, the accused persons with common intention held both hands of the defacto complainant and beat him and punched him on the chest and lower abdomen. It is 3 **BAIL APPL. NO. 4416 OF 2025** 2025:KER:28514 further alleged that the 2[nd] accused beat the defacto complainant and punched him on the forehead and face and abdomen with bare hands. There are other overtacts also to the accused. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 17.03.2025. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that there is criminal antecedents to the petitioner and he is involved in one more case. 6. After hearing both sides, I think the petitioner can be released on bail, considering the detention period. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is serious and there is criminal antecedents to the petitioner. 4 **BAIL APPL. NO. 4416 OF 2025** 2025:KER:28514 But, 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. There can be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays at 10.00 am, till final report is filed. 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 5 **BAIL APPL. NO. 4416 OF 2025** 2025:KER:28514 ## 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 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 6 **BAIL APPL. NO. 4416 OF 2025** 2025:KER:28514 ## 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 following directions: 1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two 7 **BAIL APPL. NO. 4416 OF 2025** 2025:KER:28514 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 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. 4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he 8 **BAIL APPL. NO. 4416 OF 2025** 2025:KER:28514 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. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays at 10.00 am, till final report is filed. 7. 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 9 **BAIL APPL. NO. 4416 OF 2025** **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28514 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