Kerala High Court
Karthik Satheesh vs State Of Kerala on 22 April, 2025
2025:KER:32790
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.5393 OF 2025
CRIME NO.170/2025 OF CHINGAVANAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 02.04.2025 IN BAIL
APPL. NO.4390 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED
KARTHIK SATHEESH,
AGED 20 YEARS,
S/O SATHEESH KAILASAM,VTC,KURICHY P.O,
SACHIVOTHAMAPURAM NOW RESIDING AT PUTHUPARAMBU,
SACHIVOTHAMAPURAN KURICHY.,
PIN - 686532
BY ADVS.
C.K.JAYAKUMAR
E.SHEENA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CHINGAVANAN POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686531
3 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
2025:KER:32790
Bail.Appl.No.5393 of 2025
2
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:32790
Bail.Appl.No.5393 of 2025
3
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under S.483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ( for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.170/2025 of
Chingavanam Police Station registered for the offences punishable
under Section 65 (1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short
'BNS') and Sections 6,5,1 and 5j(ii) of the protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
3. The prosecution case is that, in the months of August
and October 2024, the accused repeatedly had penetrative sexual
intercourse with the victim who was aged 17 years from the house
of the petitioner and from the house of the victim respectively and
thereby impregnated her. Thus, the accused allegedly committed
the above offences.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public
Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner was aged 19 years at the time of the incident and the
girl was aged 17 years. They were in love with each other. Further
incarceration of the petitioner in judicial custody will spoil the life of
2025:KER:32790
the petitioner as he is also a man of young age.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation
of the offence is completed, and a final report has been filed before
the jurisdictional Court. The offence alleged against the petitioner is
serious in nature and if he is released on bail there is every
possibility of his influencing the witnesses.
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
2025:KER:32790
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
2025:KER:32790
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 learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that
evidencing that the petitioner and the de facto complainant were in
love with each other, the de facto complainant has now filed
Annexure A3 affidavit stating that she was in love with the
petitioner, and she has no objection in granting bail to him. The de
facto complainant has now attained the age of majority.
Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision 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
2025:KER:32790
two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
2. 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.
3. The petitioner shall not leave India without permission
of the jurisdictional Court.
4. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to
the offence of which he is accused.
5. 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
Cak
2025:KER:32790
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 5393/2025
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE FREE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
20.03.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE ADDL
SESSIONS COURT -I ,KOTTAYAM
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.04.2025
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN B.A
ANNEXURE A3 THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
