Kerala High Court
Mithun Manoj vs State Of Kerala on 22 April, 2025
2025:KER:32813
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. 5391 OF 2025
CRIME NO.106/2025 OF KANNAVAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MITHUN MANOJ
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O.MANOJ, THANIKKAL HOUSE, SVALAKKUZHI,
MALLAPPALLI.P.O, PATHANMTHITTA- 689544
BY ADVS.
D.ARUN BOSE
K.VISWAN
P.S.POOJA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KANNAVAM POLICE STATION, KANNAVAM P.O, KANNUR
DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 670650
ADV.RENJITH GEORGE, SR. P.P.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 5391 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:32813
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under S.483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ( for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner herein is the 3rd accused in Crime
No.106/2025 of Kannavam Police Station registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 309(4) and 3(5) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').
3. The prosecution case is that, on 15.02.2025 at about
04.15 p.m., from the public road in front of Kolayad Madrassa at
Kolayad, while the defacto complainant was walking through the
road, accused Nos.1 and 2 came in a motorcycle and snatched her
gold chain weighing 4 sovereigns. The petitioner/accused herein
received the said gold chain from accused Nos.1 and 2 with the
knowledge that the same is a stolen article. 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
petitioner was arrested on 15.02.2025 and since then he has been
judicial custody. He has no criminal antecedents and the overt act
of snatching the gold ornament was committed by accused Nos.1
2025:KER:32813
and 2.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that if this
Court inclines to grant bail to the petitioner, strict conditions may
be incorporated in the bail order.
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.
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
2025:KER:32813
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."
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
2025:KER:32813
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. 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.
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 dissuade him/her from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
4. The petitioner shall not leave India without permission
2025:KER:32813
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
ANS
2025:KER:32813
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 5391/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure - 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO.106 OF KANNAVAM POLICE
STATION, KANNUR DATED 15.02.2025.
Annexure - 2 THE ORIGINAL OF THE BAIL ORDER DATED
02.04.2025 OF HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT
THALASSERY IN CRL.M.C.NO.388 OF 2025.
