Unnikrishnan, Vishnu Vinod V, Vijay V.V v. State of Kerala and Sub Inspector of Police, Ponnani Police Station

B.A.No.4509 of 2025 1 2025:KER:28899 **==> picture [57 x 57] 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. 4509 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.353/2025 OF PONNANI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1, 2 & 4:** **1 UNNIKRISHNAN AGED 24 YEARS** **S/O. SHANMUGHAN, KARIPPALIL HOUSE, ITC ROAD, KOTTATHARA, PONNANI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679577** - **2 VISHNU VINOD. V AGED 26 YEARS** **S/O. VINOD KUMAR.V, PULPRAYIL HOUSE, KUTTIKAD, PONNANI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679577** - **3 VIJAY V.V AGED 27 YEARS** **S/O. VELAYUDHAN, VETTAMVEETTIL HOUSE, KOTTATHARA, PONNANI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679577** **BY ADVS. RASSAL JANARDHANAN A. THAREEQ ANVER K. P.R.AJAY ABHISHEK M. KUNNATHU** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA** B.A.No.4509 of 2025 2 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28899 **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** **2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PONNANI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679586** **BY ADV. SR PP – SRI. NOUSHAD K A** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.4509 of 2025 3 2025:KER:28899 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.4509 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.353 of 2025 of Ponnani Police Station, Malappuram. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 110, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1) & 137(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'). 3. The prosecution case is that, on 16.03.2025 at about 7:00 p.m., Accused Nos.1 and 2, in furtherance of their common intention with the other accused, took the defacto complainant from Kandakurumbakavu Temple to Pambodi forcefully and they wrongfully restrained him. The 1st accused voluntarily caused hurt to him by beating him with a wooden stick and Accused Nos.2 to 4 voluntarily caused hurt to him by beating up him with B.A.No.4509 of 2025 4 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28899 their hands. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said offences. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in custody from 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 and submitted that there are criminal antecedents to the petitioners. 7. After hearing both sides, I think the petitioners can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. The petitioners are in custody from 18.03.2025. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioners are not necessary. There can be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10 A.M. till the final report is filed. 8. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme B.A.No.4509 of 2025 5 2025:KER:28899 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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 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 B.A.No.4509 of 2025 6 2025:KER:28899 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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 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, B.A.No.4509 of 2025 7 2025:KER:28899 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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 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. B.A.No.4509 of 2025 8 2025:KER:28899 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 5. Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10 A.M. till the final report is filed. 6. 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. 7. If any of the above 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 any violation of - the above conditions. Sd/- ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** DM