Kerala High Court

Vishnuraj S vs State Of Kerala on 11 April, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                             2025:KER:32080
           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. 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
                             2
                P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                --------------------------------
                   B.A.No.5162 of 2025
                 -------------------------------
          Dated this the 11th day of April, 2025


                         ORDER

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 2025:KER:32080

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 2025:KER:32080

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 2025:KER:32080

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 2025:KER:32080

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:

2025:KER:32080

"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: