Sundara Pandyan v. State of Kerala and The Station House Officer, Irinjalakuda Police Station

BA No.4233 of 2025 1 ``` 2025:KER:26976 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4233 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.218/2025 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR ``` ## **`PETITIONER(S):`** ``` SUNDARA PANDYAN AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. PACHAYYAPPAN, DOOR NO. 103, KUMMAMPATTY HOUSE, VEERAKKAL P.O., DINDIGUL DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 624303 ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.M.FIROZ V.C.UNNIKRISHNAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT( S ) :`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680125 ``` ## **`BY ADV:`** ## **`SR PP - HRITHWIK C S`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` BA No.4233 of 2025 2 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:26976` ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------BA No.4233 of 2025 -------------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of March, 2025** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. 2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.218/2025 of Irinjalakuda Police Station, Thrissur. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 126(2), 118(1) and 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 3. The prosecution case is that, there was an altercation between the defacto complainant BA No.4233 of 2025 3 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26976 ``` and the accused while moving the bus from the place. On account of which, on 04.02.2015 at 10:00 p.m., the accused with the intention of causing hurt to the defacto complainant, pushed him down in front of Star Benz Spare parts and hit him on the head and face using the carrier plate which is used for affixing the break liner to vehicle. Due to the attack, the defacto complainant sustained deep injuries on his head and face. When the accused hit him once again, the defacto complainant blocked the hit with his hand, at the moment the accused bit on his thumb finger. It is further alleged that if the defacto complainant did not ward off the strike upon his head, it would have resulted in his death. Thus, the accused is alleged to have BA No.4233 of 2025 4 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26976 ``` committed the above said offences. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 05.02.2025. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court, if this Court grants him bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He also submitted that the petitioner is from the State of Tamil Nadu and if he is released on bail, he will not be available for trial. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to offer local sureties from Thrissur District. The same is recorded. I make it clear that, this is not an order from this Court and it is a voluntary submission BA No.4233 of 2025 5 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26976 ``` from the counsel appearing for the petitioner on behalf of the petitioner. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is serious. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that the final report in this case is already filed. Moreover the petitioner is in custody from 05.02.2025. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary. The petitioner 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 BA No.4233 of 2025 6 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26976 ``` 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 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, BA No.4233 of 2025 7 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:26976` 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 principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our BA No.4233 of 2025 8 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:26976` 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 decisions and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following conditions: _1. Petitioner shall be released on bail_ _on executing a bond for_ _Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) with two solvent sureties_ BA No.4233 of 2025 9 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26976 ``` _each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. The submission of the petitioner that he will offer local sureties from Thrissur District is recorded._ _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 from disclosing such facts to_ BA No.4233 of 2025 10 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26976 ``` _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 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._ BA No.4233 of 2025 11 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26976 ``` _6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance_ `w` _ith law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above condition._ nvj **Sd/P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE**