Kerala High Court
Nasmal vs State Of Kerala on 22 April, 2025
2025:KER:32780
BAIL APPL. NO. 5346 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 2ND VAISAKHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 5346 OF 2025
CRIME NO.835/2024 OF Mathilakom Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP NO.1514 OF 2025 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KODUNGALLUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6:
NASMAL
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O NAZAR, PATHUPPILLY HOUSE, PUTHIYAKAVU,
PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE, MATHILAKAM P.O.,
KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN -
680685
BY ADVS.
P.M.ABDUL JALEEL (KODUNGALLUR)
K.N.MUHAMMED THANVEER
ARUNIMA.T.S.
ALTHAF AHMED ABDU
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
ADV.SANGEETH RAJ N.R.,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:32780
BAIL APPL. NO. 5346 OF 2025
2
MURALEE KRISHNA S., J.
--------------------------------------------
Bail. Appl.No. 5346 of 2025
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of April, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under S.483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ( for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner herein is the 6 th accused in Crime
No.835/2024 of Mathilakam Police Station registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 137(2), 115(2),
118(1), 310(2), 238(b) and 351 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (for short 'BNS').
3. The prosecution case is that, on 08/10/2024 at 8.30
hours, while son of the defacto complainant and his friend were
going on a motorcycle, the petitioner along with other accused
hit their car on the motorcycle and kidnapped the defacto
complainant's son and his friend. It is alleged that during the
altercation the 5th accused snatched the gold chain having
weight of 1 ½ sovereign from the neck of the defacto
complainant's son. It is also alleged that accused Nos. 1 to 6
2025:KER:32780
BAIL APPL. NO. 5346 OF 2025
jointly robbed two mobile phones and Rs. 25,000/- also. Thus,
the accused allegedly committed the above offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is a young man of 23 years. It is true that he
has some criminal antecedents. But the possibility of his
reformation has to be considered, especially when considering
the young age of the petitioner.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that there are
serious criminal antecedents against the petitioner.
7. 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 [(2020) 13
SCC 791] 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.
2025:KER:32780
BAIL APPL. NO. 5346 OF 2025
8. Moreover, in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India
[2024 KHC 6431], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:
"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."
2025:KER:32780
BAIL APPL. NO. 5346 OF 2025
9. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement
[2024 KHC 6426], also the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
thus:
"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"."
10. The petitioner was arrested on 27.03.2025. Since then
he has been in judicial custody. It is true that some criminal
antecedents are reported against him. But while considering the
facts of the case, especially the young of the petitioner, I am of
the considered opinion that the possibility of reformation of the
2025:KER:32780
BAIL APPL. NO. 5346 OF 2025
petitioner cannot be overlooked in this case. Considering the
dictum laid down in the above decisions and considering the
facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is
allowed with the following directions:
1. The 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.
One of such sureties shall be either the parent of the
petitioner or a near relative if none of the parents are
available.
2. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Officer on every Monday between 10.00 am and
11.00 am till the final report is filed or for a period of
three months from the date of his release on bail,
whichever event occurs first.
3. 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
2025:KER:32780
BAIL APPL. NO. 5346 OF 2025
dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to any police officer.
4. The petitioner shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar
to the offence of which he is accused.
6. It is made clear that if any of the above conditions
are violated by the petitioner, the prosecution and the
victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional
Court for cancellation of bail in accordance with law.
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S.,
JUDGE
LEK
