Jijeesh .N.P vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 8250 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 8250 Ker
Judgement Date : 22 April, 2025

Kerala High Court

Jijeesh .N.P vs State Of Kerala on 22 April, 2025

                                               2025:KER:32804


          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. 5558 OF 2025

CRIME NO.202/2025 OF Parappangadi Police Station, Malappuram

PETITIONER:

         JIJEESH .N.P
         AGED 41 YEARS
         S/O. KUMARAN .P., NELLIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
         VALLIKUNNU. P.O., KADALUNDI NAGARAM,
         MALAPPURAM., PIN - 673314

         BY ADVS.
         AVM.SALAHUDIN
         NASRIN WAHAB



RESPONDENT:

         STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
         HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031



OTHER PRESENT:

          Adv.Sangeeth Raj.N.R, P.P.


     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                            2025:KER:32804
B.A.No. 5558 of 2025                2

                                  ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under S.483 of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ( for short 'BNSS').

2. Petitioner herein is the second accused in Crime

No.202/2025 of Parappanangadi Police Station, Malappuram,

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 110, 351(2)

and 329(3) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

(for short 'BNS').

3. The prosecution case is that, on 22.02.2025, at about

05:10p.m., near Paruthikkad, due to alleged prior animosity, the

accused, in furtherance of their common intention, followed the

defacto complainant in a scooter and dashed the defacto

complainant's scooter. It is further alleged that the 2nd accused

brandished a sword/chopper and attacked the defacto

complainant, causing injuries, and that both accused threatened to

kill the defacto complainant. 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 in custody from 23.02.2025. He further submitted 2025:KER:32804

that the first accused had already been granted bail by this Court

as per order dated 10.04.2025 in B.A. No. 5098 of 2025. The

petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions, if this Court grants

him bail.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application.

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 2025:KER:32804

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."

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:32804

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 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.