Babu A.K vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 12062 Ker

Kerala High Court

Babu A.K vs State Of Kerala on 11 December, 2025

Author: K. Babu

Bench: K. Babu

BAIL APPL. NO. 14204 OF 2025         :1:                2025:KER:95475
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025/20TH AGRAHAYANA,1947

                      BAIL APPL. NO. 14204 OF 2025

        CRIME NO.171/2025 OF Irikkur Police Station, Kannur

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.10.2025 IN CRMP 5681/2025 IN SC

NO.448 OF 2025 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & I ADDITIONAL

MOTOR     ACCIDENT     CLAIMS    TRIBUNAL/RENT    CONTROL     APPELLATE

AUTHORITY, THALASSERY

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

             BABU A.K
             AGED 41 YEARS
             MADATHIL COLONY, IRUMMANATHUR, PERYA, WAYANAD
             DISTRICT, PIN - 673593

             BY ADV SHRI.GODWIN JOSEPH


RESPONDENT/STATE:


             STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
             KERALA, ERNAKULAM, (THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
             IRIKKUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT),PIN-682031


             BY ADV.SHRI.C K SURESH, SR PP


        THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.12.2025,     THE    COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY    DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 14204 OF 2025       :2:                2025:KER:95475



                                ORDER

This is an application seeking regular bail filed under Section

483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.171/2025 of

Irikkur Police Station, Kannur. The offence alleged against the

petitioner is punishable under Sections 103 (1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

3. The prosecution case is that on 09.03.2025 at 07.30 p.m.

the petitioner voluntarily caused hurt to his wife, the victim, who

succumbed to the injuries.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the victim sustained

injuries as she had consumed an excessive quantity of alcohol and fell

on the ground.

5. The petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2025 and he has

been in judicial custody for more than six months.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Senior Pubic Prosecutor.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that further

detention of the petitioner will adversely affect him in defending his

case. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal BAIL APPL. NO. 14204 OF 2025 :3: 2025:KER:95475

antecedents and he is prepared to co-operate with the trial.

8. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

plea.

9. I have gone through the Case Diary. This is the case in

which the police completed investigation and submitted final report

and the matter is pending before the learned Sessions Judge.

10. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception

has been well recognised by judicial pronouncements. This is the

principle underlined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

11. There cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of

granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the

exercise of judicial discretion in granting or cancelling bail. {Vide:

Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1978) 1 SCC 118]}.

12. The issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and

burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed

jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitised judicial process.

Personal liberty, deprived when bail is refused, is too precious a value

of our constitutional system recognised under Article 21 that the curial

power to negate it is a great trust exercisable, not casually but

judicially, with lively concern for the cost to the individual and the

community. After all, personal liberty of an accused or convict is BAIL APPL. NO. 14204 OF 2025 :4: 2025:KER:95475

fundamental, suffering lawful eclipse only in terms of "procedure

established by law" {Vide: Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. State [(1978) 1

SCC 240]}.

13. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from

the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of

the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The

object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty

must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that

an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts

owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins

after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly

tried and duly found guilty {Vide: Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [(2012) 1

SCC 40]}.

14. In Pramod Prasannan v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC

OnLine 2238] this Court observed thus:

"18. The issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitized judicial process. ... After all, personal liberty of an accused or convict is fundamental, suffering lawful eclipse only in terms of "procedure established by law". [vide Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. State (1978) 1 SCC 240 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 115] : (SCC p. 242, para 1)] BAIL APPL. NO. 14204 OF 2025 :5: 2025:KER:95475

19. There cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or cancelling bail. [vide Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (1978) 1 SCC 118 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 41]

20. Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end.'[AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE(2d, Vol. 8, page 806, para 39)]

21. The question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail. [vide Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465]

22. The object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial, that the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial and that it is indisputable that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. There is no hard-and-fast rule and no inflexible principle governing the exercise of the discretion to grant bail. The only principle which is established is that the discretion should be exercised judiciously. [vide Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia]

23. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia the Apex Court further BAIL APPL. NO. 14204 OF 2025 :6: 2025:KER:95475

observed thus:- ' '27......An accused person who enjoys freedom is in a much better position to look after his case and to properly defend himself than if he were in custody. As a presumably innocent person he is therefore entitled to freedom and every opportunity to look after his own case. A presumably innocent person must have his freedom to enable him to establish his innocence.''

24. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra) and Babu Singh v. State of U.P [1978 AIR 527: (1978) 1 SCC 579], the Apex Court observed that it makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody.

25. The consequences of pre-trial detention are grave. Accused presumed innocent are subjected to the psychological and physical deprivations of jail life, usually under more onerous conditions than are imposed on convicted persons. The jailed accused loses his job if he has one and is prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defence. Equally important, the burden of his detention frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his family." [vide Moti Ram v. State [1978 AIR 1594: (1978) 4 SCC 47].

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

29. In Asha v. State of U.P. (supra), the Allahabad High Court observed thus:-

"87. The need of an accused to gather resources to get legal advice and collect evidences will also be a factor for consideration. The issue whether the accused has effective pairokars to professionally collect defence evidence, obtain quality legal advice, and prosecute his defence in the trial in an efficacious manner may also need a look in. At that stage BAIL APPL. NO. 14204 OF 2025 :7: 2025:KER:95475

the Court is also liable to examine whether further detention of the accused will become punitive.

88. In the facts and circumstances of a case, the Court may additionally impose stringent conditions to prevent the abuse of the liberty of bail and to ensure the presence of the accused.

89. Preparation of defence does not automatically guarantee enlargement of an accused on bail. Nor can bail be granted for defence on a mechanical basis. Effective conduct of defence can be a ground for bail at the appropriate stage when examined in the composite light of other relevant parameters.

90. Grant of bail for defence will thus be a result of judicial discretion guided by cumulative consideration of the aforesaid relevant factors. It is however clarified that the above parameters are neither exhaustive nor are liable to be applied in a rigid formulaic manner. The preceding discussion does not attempt a comprehensive catalogue of grounds of bail for defence. The aforesaid criteria may be adopted or adapted or evolved in the facts and circumstances of a case. In the ultimate analysis the exercise of judicial discretion for grant of bail to conduct defence requires application of mind to all relevant facts and circumstances of each case to advance the cause of justice and prevent the possibility of injustice."

15. Having regard to the circumstances brought out and the

tenure of judicial custody undergone by the petitioner, I am of the view

that he is entitled to be released on bail on conditions. BAIL APPL. NO. 14204 OF 2025 :8: 2025:KER:95475

In the result, the Bail Application is allowed as follows:

(a) The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on

his executing bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two

Lakhs Only) with two solvent sureties each for the

like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

(b) The petitioner shall regularly appear before the trial

court and co-operate with the trial.

(c) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating

Officer between 10 A.M. and 11 A.M. on the Second

Saturday of every month.

(d) The petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat

or promise to any of the prosecution witnesses.

(e) The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence

while on bail.

(f) If any of the bail conditions are violated by the

petitioner, the jurisdictional court will be at liberty to

cancel the bail, in accordance with law.

Sd/-

K.BABU JUDGE

nk BAIL APPL. NO. 14204 OF 2025 :9: 2025:KER:95475

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 14204 OF 2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 10.03.2025 IN CRIME NO. 171/2025 OF IRIKKUR POLICE STATION, ALONG WITH THE F.I. STATEMENT

Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 29.05.2025 IN CRIME NO. 171/2025 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -

II, KANNUR

Annexure A3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.10.2025 IN CRL. M.P. NO. 5681/2025 IN S.C. NO. 448/2025 OF THE HON'BLE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - I, THALASSERY