Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4122 OF 2025 CRIME NO.22/2025 OF Patanakkad Police Station, Alappuzha AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2025 IN CMP NO.1001 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, CHERTHALA PETITIONER/S: ANANTHU AGED 27 YEARS S/O ANIRUDHAN, NIOVARATHIL HOUSE, THYCAL.P.O, KADAKKARAPPALLY CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688530 BY ADVS. T.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR C.H.ABDUL RASAC RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT: SRI.HRITHWIK.C.S, SR.PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------- B.A. No.4122 of 2025 --------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No. 22/2025 of Pattanakkadu Police station,
Alappuzha District. The offences alleged against the petitioner is under sections 126(2), 115(2), 296(b), 74, 351(2) and 3(5) of BNS. The petitioner is arrested on 21.02.2025.
3. The prosecution case is that the alleged
incident was happened in connection with the festival at Punnackal Parambu Bhajana Madom temple. The husband and brother of the defacto complainant was operated the mic set at the program. From 8.30 PM to 10.00 Pm, a devotional 'ganamela was conducted in the temple. When the song was over at 10.PM, the brother of the defacto complainant turned off the mic. At that time the 1st accused caught hold of his shirt and demanded to play songs. After that incident, at 11.00 Pm, when the defacto complainant and others returned from the
temple, the 1st accused allegedly kicked on the chest of the husband of the defacto complainant. The 1st accused again beaten the husband of the de facto complainant by his hand and when the brother of the de facto complainant tried to intervene, the accused beaten him by his hand. When the de facto complainant tried to obstruct the accused, the 1st accused caught hold on the hands of the de facto complainant and get close to his body, slapped into the leg of the son of the defacto complainant and thereby committed the alleged offences.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is in custody from 21.02.2025. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions imposed by this Court, if this Court grant him bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. But the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the report received, no criminal antecedent is alleged against the
petitioner.
7. This Court considered the contentions of
the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. From the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the offence under Section 74 of BNS is attracted, is the matter to be investigated, I do
not want any observation about the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 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:
“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. Petitioner 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 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 them from disclosing such facts to 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. 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 jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above conditions. sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE Scl/