Kerala High Court
Muhammed Rameez vs State Of Kerala on 11 April, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:32049
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 5259 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1141/2024 OF Nemom Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/S:
MUHAMMED RAMEEZ
AGED 19 YEARS
S/O SULFICAR, CHALUVILA VEEDU, OLIPPIL,
SANTHIVILA MARKET JUNCTION, 5TH WARD, KALLIYOOR
VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
695042
BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
NEMOM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695020
SRI NOUSHAD K A, 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:32049
BAIL APPL. NO. 5259 OF 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
----------------------------------
B.A.No.5259 of 2025
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime
No1141/2024 of Nemom Police Station, registered alleging
offences punishable under Sections 109, 126(1), 296(a) and
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
3. The prosecution case is that; petitioner and
the other accused on 28.07.2024 at about 7.30 P.M, the
accused six in numbers, attacked the defacto complainant
and his friend by using a sword and caused injuries on the
head. It is further alleged that, the when the defacto
complainant attempted to ran away from the scene the
accused followed the defacto complainant and again
attacked him and caused injury on the hand. It is further
alleged that when the friend of the defacto complainant
2025:KER:32049
BAIL APPL. NO. 5259 OF 2025
attempted to save the defacto complainant, he also was
assaulted and caused injury on the hand and there by
committed the offence punishable Sections 109, 126(1),
296(a) and 3(5) of BNS. Petitioner was arrested in
connection with another crime on 10.03.2025. Petitioner's
arrest in this case was recorded on 27.03.2025.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that, the petitioner is the third accused and he is in custody
from 10.03.2025 in another case. His arrest in this case was
recorded on 27.03.2025. Petitioner is ready to abide by any
conditions, if this Court grants him bail.
6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. He also submitted that the petitioner is involved
in one more case.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the
allegations against the petitioner is very serious. But
considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
2025:KER:32049
BAIL APPL. NO. 5259 OF 2025
also considering the period of detention, 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
2025:KER:32049
BAIL APPL. NO. 5259 OF 2025
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
2025:KER:32049
BAIL APPL. NO. 5259 OF 2025
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".
2025:KER:32049
BAIL APPL. NO. 5259 OF 2025
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 him from disclosing
such facts to the Court or to any police
officer.
2025:KER:32049
BAIL APPL. NO. 5259 OF 2025
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 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
2025:KER:32049
BAIL APPL. NO. 5259 OF 2025
court to cancel the bail, if there is any
violation of the above conditions.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE
SSG
