Kerala High Court

Pradheesh Gopi vs State Of Kerala on 5 February, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                                              2025:KER:9089



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

    WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 16TH MAGHA, 1946

                      BAIL APPL. NO. 1375 OF 2025

     CRIME NO.2247/2024 OF Angamali Police Station, Ernakulam


PETITIONER/S:

            PRADHEESH GOPI
            AGED 41 YEARS
            S/O GOPI, KOSHNAYI HOUSE THURAVOOR KARA, THURAVOOR
            VILLAGE ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683572


            BY ADV JOSHNA JOY


RESPONDENT/S:

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


            C K SURESH SR GP


     THIS   BAIL    APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR    ADMISSION   ON
05.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                           2025:KER:9089
BAIL APPL. NO.1375 OF 2025

                                   2


                 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                --------------------------------
                   B.A.No.1375 of 2025
                 -------------------------------
        Dated this the 05th day of February, 2025


                              ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

2. Petitioner is the 5th accused in Crime

No.2247/2024 of Anagamaly Police Station, registered

alleging offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2),

191(3), 190, 49, 103(1) and 249(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

3. The prosecution case is that, on 15.10.2024,

at 11:00pm., the accused Nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 committed

murder of one Ashik at Hills Park Bar at Angamaly. The other

accused also participated in the commission of the offence.

Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the

Public Prosecutor.

2025:KER:9089 BAIL APPL. NO.1375 OF 2025

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner is in custody from 22.10.2024. The counsel also

submitted that, accused Nos.2 and 9 were released on bail by

this Court and two other accused were released on bail by the

Sessions Court. The counsel submitted that, petitioner is

ready to abide by any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.

6. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the

bail application. He submitted that the petitioner is involved

in four other cases, all those cases are registered in

connection with inflicting hurt. He submitted that the

petitioner, who is the 5th accused is actively participated in

the murder. The Public Prosecutor submitted that, petitioner

may not be granted bail.

7. This Court considered the contention of the

petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the

allegation against the petitioner is very serious. He actively

participated in the murder case is the prosecution case. But,

the fact remains that this Court granted bail to accused Nos.2 2025:KER:9089 BAIL APPL. NO.1375 OF 2025

and 9 as per the orders in B.A No.11278/2024 and B.A

No.10088/2024 respectively. The two other accused were

released on bail by the Sessions Court also. In such

circumstances, I think, the continued detention of the

petitioner may not be necessary. Therefore, the petitioner can

be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.

8. Moreover, 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 [2019 (16) SCALE 870], 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.

9. Moreover, in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of

India [2024 KHC 6431], the Hon'ble Supreme Court

observed that:

2025:KER:9089 BAIL APPL. NO.1375 OF 2025

"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 2025:KER:9089 BAIL APPL. NO.1375 OF 2025

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." (underline supplied)

10. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of

Enforcement [2024 KHC 6426], also the Hon'ble Supreme

Court observed that:

"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 2025:KER:9089 BAIL APPL. NO.1375 OF 2025

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".

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. 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.

2025:KER:9089 BAIL APPL. NO.1375 OF 2025

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.

3. Petitioner shall not leave India without

permission of the jurisdictional Court.