Kerala High Court
Roopesh vs State Of Kerala on 9 April, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:30933
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2025/19TH CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 4959 OF 2025
CRIME NO.605/2025 OF CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
ANOOP
AGED 34 YEARS, S/O CHANDRAN, DHANYA HOUSE,
CHERIYIL, EDAVATTOM, CHIRAKKARA, KOLLAM,
PIN - 691 578.
BY ADV
C.Y.VINOD KUMAR
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682 031.
BY ADV
NOUSHAD K A, SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4972/2025, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:30933
B.A Nos.4959 and 4972 of 2025
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 19TH CHAITHRA,
1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 4972 OF 2025
CRIME NO.605/2025 OF CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 & 3:
1 ROOPESH
AGED 33 YEARS, S/O DEVADAS, RAJESH BHAVAN,
CHERIYIL, EDAVATTOM, CHIRAKKARA, KOLLAM, PIN -
691 578.
2 SHAJI
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O KOCHUNARAYANAN, SIVA
MANDIRAM, CHERIYIL, EDAVATTOM, CHIRAKKARA,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691 578.
BY ADV
C.Y.VINOD KUMAR
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.
BY ADV
HRITHWIK C S, SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4959/2025, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:30933
B.A Nos.4959 and 4972 of 2025
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.Nos.4959 & 4972 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of April, 2025
COMMON ORDER
These Bail Applications filed under Section 483 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita are connected,
and therefore I am disposing these cases by a common
order.
2. Petitioners in these bail applications are the
accused in Crime No. 605 of 2025 of Chathannoor Police
Station, Kollam. The above case is registered against the
petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections
126 (2), 115 (2), 118 (1), 110 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhitha (for short'BNS').
3. The prosecution case is that on 30.03.2025
there occurred a wordy quarrel between the defacto
complainant and the accused during the temple festival
2025:KER:30933
B.A Nos.4959 and 4972 of 2025
procession and due to the said enimity, at about 10:00
p.m. on the same day, the accused restrained the defacto
complainant and manhandled the defacto complainant
and caused injuries to him. It is further alleged that the
1st accused waved a knife towards the neck of the defacto
complainant, he blocked the same with his hand and
same caused injury on his left hand and the accused beat
him with bare hands and the 2nd accused stabbed him
with a key on his chest and thus the accused committed
the offenses.
4. Heard.
5. It is true that the allegation against the
petitioners is serious. But, the petitioners are in custody
from 30.03.2025. Indefinite incarceration of the
petitioners is not necessary. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, I think the petitioners can be
released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.
2025:KER:30933
B.A Nos.4959 and 4972 of 2025
6. 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.
7. 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
2025:KER:30933
B.A Nos.4959 and 4972 of 2025
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)
8. 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
2025:KER:30933
B.A Nos.4959 and 4972 of 2025
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. Petitioners shall be released on
bail on executing a bond for
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
only) with two solvent sureties each
2025:KER:30933
B.A Nos.4959 and 4972 of 2025
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 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.
2025:KER:30933
B.A Nos.4959 and 4972 of 2025
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 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 petitioners, the
jurisdictional Court can cancel the
bail in accordance to law, even
though the bail is granted by this
2025:KER:30933
B.A Nos.4959 and 4972 of 2025
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
AMR
