Kerala High Court
Santhia.B vs State Of Kerala on 22 April, 2025
2025:KER:32791
Bail Appl. Nos.5497 & 5546 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. 5497 OF 2025
CRIME NO.359/2025 OF Thrikkodithanam Police Station,
Kottayam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
SANTHIA.B
AGED 42 YEARS
D/O K BALAKRISHNAN PILLAI PUTHENPURACKAL PAIPPAD
THRIKODTHIANAM,NALUKODY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686548
BY ADVS. ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR
PRAMOD B.
KIRAN RAJ R.
SIJIN K RAJ
SAI KRISHNAN UNNITHAN V.
TITTU JOSE CHACKANAD
PREVIN J.
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
ADV.RENJTH GEORGE, SR.P.P.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5546/2025, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:32791
Bail Appl. Nos.5497 & 5546 of 2025
2
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. 5546 OF 2025
CRIME NO.359/2025 OF Thrikkodithanam Police Station,
Kottayam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:
PRAISEMON P.N
AGED 26 YEARS, S/O PRAKASH VARGHESE,
NALUPARAYIL(H)VENGAL BHAGAM, KAVUMBHAM VILLAGE,
NOW RESIDING AT OTTAPLACKAL HOUSE, PEEDIKAPADI
NHAGAM THOTTACADU VILLAGE, PIN - 686539
BY ADVS. ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR
PRAMOD B.
KIRAN RAJ R.
SIJIN K RAJ
SAI KRISHNAN UNNITHAN V.
TITTU JOSE CHACKANAD
PREVIN J.
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
ADV,SANGEETH RAJ.N.R., P.P.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5497/2025, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:32791
Bail Appl. Nos.5497 & 5546 of 2025
3
MURALEE KRISHNA S., J.
---------------------------------
B.A. Nos.5497 & 5546 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of April, 2025
ORDER
These Bail Applications are filed under S.483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ( for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 3 in
Crime No.359/2025 of Thrikkodithanam Police Station registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2),
118(1), 351(2) and 324(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for
short 'BNS').
3. The prosecution case is that, on 18.03.2025 at
about 7.30 am, while the defacto complainant was travelling in
his car, accused Nos.1 to 4, in furtherance of common intention,
intercepted the car and, using a reaper broke the front glass of
the car. When the defacto complainant attempted to prevent
the accused, they attacked him with the reaper resulting injuries
to him and also a loss of Rs.60,000/- due to the damage caused
2025:KER:32791
Bail Appl. Nos.5497 & 5546 of 2025
to the car. Thus, the accused allegedly committed the above
offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the 1st accused was arrested on 31.03.2025 and
the 3rd accused was arrested on 20.03.2025, and since then,
they have been in judicial custody. There is a counter case also
registered on the complaint of the wife of the 1 st accused
against the defacto complainant as Crime No.847/2024. It is as
a counterblast, a false case is foisted against the petitioners.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
applications.
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
2025:KER:32791
Bail Appl. Nos.5497 & 5546 of 2025
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 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:32791
Bail Appl. Nos.5497 & 5546 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. Considering the dictum laid down in the above
decisions and considering the facts and circumstances of this
case, these Bail Applications are allowed with the following
directions:
1. The petitioners shall be released on bail on
2025:KER:32791
Bail Appl. Nos.5497 & 5546 of 2025
executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties
each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional Court.
2. The petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. The petitioners shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which they are accused.
2025:KER:32791
Bail Appl. Nos.5497 & 5546 of 2025
6. It is made clear that if any of the above
conditions are violated by the petitioners, 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
JV
