Kerala High Court
Raneesh vs State Of Kerala on 9 April, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
B.A.No.4969 of 2025
1
2025:KER:30675
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. 4969 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1068/2024 OF Poochakkal Police Station, Alappuzha
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMC NO.351 OF
2025 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,
ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1:
RANEESH
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O NAZAR PONNANCHERIL VADUTHALA JETTI P.O
AROOKUTTY PANCHAYATH CHERTHALA, PIN - 688535
BY ADVS.
MANU HARSHAKUMAR
RAPHAEL THEKKAN
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11)
B.A.No.4969 of 2025
2
2025:KER:30675
BY ADV.
SR PP- NOUSHAD K A
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.4969 of 2025
3
2025:KER:30675
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.4969 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 09th day of April, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.1068
of 2024 of Poochakkal Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioner and another alleging offences
punishable under Sections 332(b), 118(1), 118(2), 115(2),
351, 3(5) & 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for
short 'BNS').
3. The prosecution case is that, on 25.12.2024
there occurred an altercation between the deceased and his
wife Reneesha regarding the posting of comment on the
photographs of Reneesha and her friends in Instagram. The
deceased Riyas assaulted his wife which was informed to the
2025:KER:30675
accused, who are the brother and father of Reneesha.
Thereafter in prosecution of the common intention of both
accused, to kill Riyas, who is the brother-in-law of the 1 st
accused and the son-in-law of the 2nd accused, reached at the
house of one Nebu, a friend of deceased. The 1 st accused beat
the deceased with a cricket stump and when he fell down, beat
on his face and body. The 2 nd accused kicked him and
threatened the inmates of the house showing a chopper. The 1st
accused beat the deceased using a stick and the 2 nd accused
shouted and encouraged to kill the victim. The 1st accused took
the chopper from the 2nd accused and dragged the deceased to
the courtyard and hacked on his head and other parts of the
deceased. The victim succumbed to the injuries. Hence it is
alleged that the accused committed the above said offences.
4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was
arrested on 26.12.2024. The 2 nd accused is already released
on bail by this Court as per Annexure-1 order. The final report
is already filed. In such circumstances, I think the continued
detention of the petitioner is not necessary. It is true that the
2025:KER:30675
main overt act is attributed to the 1st accused. But the
petitioner was in custody from 26.12.2024. Therefore, I think
the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent
conditions.
5. 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.
6. 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
2025:KER:30675
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)
7. 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
2025:KER:30675
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"."
8. 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
2025:KER:30675
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 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. 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
2025:KER:30675
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
DM
