Kerala High Court
Jobish vs State Of Kerala on 22 April, 2025
2025:KER:32777
BAIL APPL. NO. 4931 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. 4931 OF 2025
CRIME NO.82/2025 OF Sholayar Police Station, Palakkad
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.03.2025 IN CRMC NO.1729 OF
2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
JOBISH
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O.SEBASTIAN, CHALIL HOUSE, VAZHAKKARAPALLAM,
SHOLAYUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678581
BY ADVS.
T.K.SANDEEP
SWETHA R.
SREELAKSHMI SHIBU
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE :
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
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:
2025:KER:32777
BAIL APPL. NO. 4931 OF 2025
2
MURALEE KRISHNA S., J.
--------------------------------
B.A. No.4931 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 sole accused in Crime
No.82/2025 of Sholayar Police Station registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 118(1), 333 and 110 of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').
3. The prosecution case is that, on 09.03.2025 at 8.00
p.m., the accused trespassed into the house of the defacto
complainant and attacked him with a chopper, thereby causing
injuries to him. It is further alleged that if the defacto
complainant had not evaded the attack, it would have caused his
death. Thus, the accused allegedly committed the above
offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
2025:KER:32777
BAIL APPL. NO. 4931 OF 2025
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2025 and since then, he has
been in judicial custody. In fact the defacto complainant
suffered injury due to a fall in a scuffle held between the parties
when they consumed alcohol.
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.
2025:KER:32777
BAIL APPL. NO. 4931 OF 2025
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."
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:32777
BAIL APPL. NO. 4931 OF 2025
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
2025:KER:32777
BAIL APPL. NO. 4931 OF 2025
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 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
JV
