VISHNURAJ S v. STATE OF KERALA

**==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:32080 ``` # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5162 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.219/2015 OF TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD ``` ## **`PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:`** ``` VISHNURAJ S AGED 34 YEARS, S/O SUNDHARAN.C, KADUCHIRA HOUSE, PATTANCHERY, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 532. ``` ``` BY ADVS. V.A.VINOD SUHAIL M. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 031.`** - **`2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 004.`** ``` BY ADV HRITHWIK C S, SR.PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:32080 ``` B.A No.5162 of 2025 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------** ## **B.A.No.5162 of 2025** **------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] 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.219 of 2025 of Town North Police Station, Palakkad. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 190, 110, 189, 191(2) and 191(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (for short’BNS’). 3. The prosecution case is that 16.02.2025 at about 01:30 AM, the accused persons who were having enmity towards the injured for the reason that he had earlier questioned consumption of alcohol in the parking area of TT Restaurant, came in a car armed with **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:32080 ``` ## B.A No.5162 of 2025 3 dangerous weapons like dagger and iron rod formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and accused Nos. 1 and 2 wrongfully restrained the owner of TT restaurant and the defacto complainant, and the 1[st] accused inflicted a cut injury on the leg of the injured. The 2[nd] accused beat the first informant on his left hand using an iron rod. When a staff of the hotel named Ameer tried to intervene accused Nos.3 to 5 fisted and kicked him. The owner of the shop had fallen down and the 1[st] accused using the dagger attempted to cut on his neck which he evaded and if not have evaded he could have sustained serious injuries. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as directed by this Court in Annexure-A2 the petitioner surrendered on 01.04.2025. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is in custody from that date **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:32080 ``` ## B.A No.5162 of 2025 4 onwards. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. 6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the report received by him, no criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioner. 7. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The petitioner earlier filed an anticipatory bail before this Court as B.A. No. 3583 of 2025. This Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. At that stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to surrender before the Investigating Officer. Accordingly, Annexure A-2 order was passed by this Court. Based on Annexure A-2 order, the petitioner surrendered on 01.04.2025. The petitioner is in custody from that day onwards. Considering the facts and **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:32080 ``` B.A No.5162 of 2025 5 circumstances of the case, I think 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 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 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:32080 ``` ## B.A No.5162 of 2025 6 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 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: **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:32080` ## B.A No.5162 of 2025 7 “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".” 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/- ``` 2025:KER:32080 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** B.A No.5162 of 2025 8 (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two 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 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:32080 ``` ## B.A No.5162 of 2025 9 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.6. 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 granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the ``` 2025:KER:32080 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** B.A No.5162 of 2025 10 jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above conditions. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** AMR