Sunner and others v. State of Kerala

BAIL APPL. NO. 4566 & 4663 OF 2025 1 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29840 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947** **BAIL APPL. NO. 4566 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.172/2025 OF Pandikad Police Station, Malappuram** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.4421 OF** **2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**SUNNER**| |---|---| ||**AGED 29 YEARS**| ||**S/O MUHAMMED, THORAN HOUSE, CHEMBRASSERI, MALAPPURAM**| ||**DISTRICT, PIN - 679327**| |**2**|**VIJU**| ||**AGED 28 YEARS**| ||**S/O BASKARAN, AANAKKOTTIL HOUSE, KODASSERI,**| ||**MALAPPURAM, PIN - 680721**| |**3**|**ARUN PRASAD T**| ||**AGED 25 YEARS**| ||**S/O PRASAD, THOTTUNGAL HOUSE, KODASSERI, MALAPPURAM,**| ||**PIN - 680721**| |**4**|**SHAMNAN AHAMMAD.C.K**| ||**AGED 26 YEARS**| ||**S/O SAHIDA VP, CHULLIKKULAVAN HOUSE, KODASSERI ,**| ||**VALLUVANGAD, VETTIKKATTRI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679531**| |**5**|**BAIJU. K**| ||**AGED 22 YEARS**| ||**S/O BABU, MANEERIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHEMBRASSERI,**| BAIL APPL. NO. 4566 & 4663 OF 2025 2 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29840 ## **MALAPPURAM., PIN - 679327** - **6 SANOOP.K AGED 25 YEARS** **S/O CHANDRAN, KARAKKADAN, MARATTAPADI, CHEMBRASSERI. MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679327** - **7 SUMITH A AGED 28 YEARS** **S/O UNNIKRISHNAN, ANAKKOTTIL HOUSE, KODASSERI, VTC CHEMBRASSERI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679327** **BY ADV SOJAN MICHEAL** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **PP-G SUDHEER** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4663/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 4566 & 4663 OF 2025 3 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29840 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947** **BAIL APPL. NO. 4663 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.172/2025 OF Pandikad Police Station, Malappuram** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **1 MUHAMMED SHAHEEN AGED 41 YEARS S/O ABDUL ASEES, VALIYAPEEDIYEKKAL HOUSE, CHEMBRASSERI EAST P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679327** **2 UMMAR KAIF AGED 30 YEARS** **S/O UNNIYALI HAJI, THOTTINGAL HOUSE, KODASSERI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 680721** - **3 SAIDALAVI AGED 31 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED, KARUTHEDATHU HOUSE, KODASSERI, VALLUVANGAD, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 680721** ## **BY ADV SOJAN MICHEAL** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** BAIL APPL. NO. 4566 & 4663 OF 2025 4 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29840 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR PP-HRITHWIK C S** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4566/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 4566 & 4663 OF 2025 5 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29840 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **–-------------------------------------** **B.A. Nos. 4566 & 4663 of 2025 -------------------------------------Dated this the 7[th] day of April, 2025** ## **O R D E R** These Bail Applications are filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. These bail applications are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these bail applications by a common order. 2. Petitioners in these bail applications are the accused in Crime No.172/2025 of Pandikad Police Station. The petitioners in BA No. 4566/2025 are accused nos. 5 to 11 and the petitioners in BA No. 4663/2025 are accused Nos. 12 to 14. The above case is registered against the petitioners and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 118, 109, 3(5) of the BAIL APPL. NO. 4566 & 4663 OF 2025 6 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29840 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Secs. 3, 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 21.03.2025 at 10.30 pm, the 1[st] accused along with his associates wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and his friends and assaulted them with iron rod. The 2[nd] accused attempted to struck on the head of the defacto complainant using an iron rod. Since he evaded the attack, he sustained injury on his fore head. It is further alleged that the 1[st] accused aimed an air gun at the defacto complainant and threatened to kill him and fired at his neck. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences. The petitioners were arrested on 22.03.2025, 23.03.2025 and 26.03.2025. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted BAIL APPL. NO. 4566 & 4663 OF 2025 7 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29840 that the petitioners are accused Nos. 5 to 14. Even if the entire allegations are accepted, the main allegation is against the 1[st] and 2[nd] accused. The petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant them bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications. The Public Prosecutor submitted that there is criminal antecedent to some of the accused. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioners and the other accused are serious. But, the main allegation is against the 1[st] and 2[nd] accused. The petitioners are in custody from 22.03.2025, 23.03.2025 and 26.03.2025. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the petitioners can be released on bail, after imposing stringent conditions. BAIL APPL. NO. 4566 & 4663 OF 2025 8 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29840 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4566 & 4663 OF 2025 9 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29840 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4566 & 4663 OF 2025 10 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29840 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. Petitioners 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 sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for BAIL APPL. NO. 4566 & 4663 OF 2025 11 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29840 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 him/her 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4566 & 4663 OF 2025 12 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29840 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 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 violation of the above any conditions. ## **Sd/-** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SKS