Sreenith K.S and Sreejith K.S v. State of Kerala

B.A.No.4404 of 2025 1 2025:KER:28922 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947** **BAIL APPL. NO. 4404 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.1772/2024 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN BAIL APPL. NO.3080** **OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **1 SREENITH K.S AGED 20 YEARS S/O. SREEKANTH, VATHUKADAN HOUSE, MATTAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680602** **2 SREEJITH K.S. AGED 18 YERAS, S/O. SREEKANTH, VATHUKADAN HOUSE, MATTAM, THRISSUR ( IS ADDED AS THE 2ND PETITIONER IN THE BAIL APPLICATION AS PER ORDER DATED 04.04.2025 IN CRL.M.A. NO.1/2025 )** **BY ADVS. E.VIJIN KARTHIK POOJA P. DEVIPRIYA SATHYASEELAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** B.A.No.4404 of 2025 2 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28922 - **2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680503** **BY ADV. PP – SRI.G SUDHEER** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.4404 of 2025 3 2025:KER:28922 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.4404 of 2025 ------------------------------- Dated this the 04th day of April, 2025 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1772/2024 of Kunnamkulam Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Secs. 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 351(3) & 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'). 3. The prosecution case is that, on 25-12-2024 at about 3:00 A.M., accused Nos. 1 to 6 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly for assaulting the defacto complainant because of some previous enmity regarding calling of obscene words through phone against the first accused. It is further alleged that B.A.No.4404 of 2025 4 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28922 the first accused possessing a knife confronted the de-facto complainant and his friend along with other accused in front of the school in kechery-Aloor public road and fisted and beat them. During the commotion, the first accused took the knife and stabbed on the left side of the abdomen and the left hand of the defacto complainant and tried to kill him. When his friend Akshay tried to intervene, he was also stabbed on his thigh, causing injuries. Thus, the accused has committed the offence as alleged. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners surrendered before the Investigating Officer on 18.03.2025. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant them bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 7. The petitioners earlier filed a bail application before this Court under Section 482 of the BNSS. This Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. At that B.A.No.4404 of 2025 5 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28922 stage, the counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are ready to surrender before the Investigating Officer. Therefore, B.A.No.3080/2025 was disposed of on 11.03.2025 directing the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer. Accordingly, the petitioners surrendered before the Investigating Officer on 18.03.2025. Now the petitioners are in custody from 18.03.2025. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioners can be released on bail after imposing 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 B.A.No.4404 of 2025 6 2025:KER:28922 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## 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) 10. In **Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 KHC 6426]** , also the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: B.A.No.4404 of 2025 7 2025:KER:28922 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** “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".” 11. 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. Petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. The petitioners shall appear before the B.A.No.4404 of 2025 8 2025:KER:28922 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 3. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are 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 B.A.No.4404 of 2025 9 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28922 petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail 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** DM