Kerala High Court
Khamaru Safan vs State Of Kerala on 7 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 18TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1562 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1287/2024 OF KONDOTTY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2025 IN Bail Appl. No.9845 OF 2024 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
KHAMARU SAFAN
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O BEERANKUTTY, PUTHUPARAMBANHOUSE, KUTOOLI,
KIZHUPARAMBA, VALILLAPUZHA(PO), ERNAD, MALAPPURAM,
KERALA, PIN - 673639
BY ADVS.
HAMZATH ALI V.K.
MUSAMIL HUVAIS C.K.
AYISHA AFRIN A.V.K.
MUHAMMAD SHAMEEL K.
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BA 1562/2025
-2-
2025:KER:10059
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
===============================
B.A.No. 1562 of 2025
================================
Dated this the 7 th day of February, 2025
O R D E R
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short, BNSS).
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1287/2024
of Kondotty Police Station. The above case is registered alleging
offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191 (2), 191 (3), 190,
126 (2), 115 (2) 118 (1) and 118(2) of BNSS.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 15.9.2024 at 00-
45 am., the accused, with an intention to attack the defacto
complainant, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant,
slapped him, kicked him and hit him with helmet. As a result of
the attack, the defacto complainant suffered injuries on his left
ear, neck, hands and chest. Hence, the accused committed the
2025:KER:10059
offence.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The petitioner earlier filed B.A No.9845/2024
before this Court under Section 482 of BNSS. This Court was not
inclined to grant the bail and directed the petitioner to surrender
before the Investigating Officer. Accordingly, the petitioner
surrendered before the Investigating Officer on 20.01.2025.
Thereafter, the petitioner was produced before the Jurisdictional
Court, and the bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as
evidenced by Annexure-A4 order.
6. The counsel for the petitioner submit that the
petitioner is in custody from 20.01.2025. It is also submitted
that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions if this
Court grants him bail.
7. The Public Prosecutor opposed the Bail
Application.
2025:KER:10059
8. This Court considered the contention of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The Public Prosecutor
submitted that the Final Report is already filed.
9. 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.
10. Moreover, in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of
India [2024 KHC 6431], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
that:
"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
2025:KER:10059
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. "
(underline supplied)
11. 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 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".
2025:KER:10059
12. 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. 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.
2025:KER:10059
3. Petitioner shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to
the offence of which he is accused, or suspected,
of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. If any of the above conditions are violated by
the petitioner the jurisdictional Court can cancel
the bail in accordance to law, even though the
bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution
and the victim are at liberty to approach the
jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is
any violation of the above conditions.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
JS
2025:KER:10059
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1562/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE
CRIME NUMBER 1287/2024 OF KONDOTTY POLICE
STATION DATED 20/09/2024
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SHO, KONDOTTY
POLICE STATION
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, DATED 07.01.2025 IN
BAIL APPL. NO. 9845 OF 2024
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JUDICIAL
FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MALAPPURAM,
IN CMP NO. 185/2025, DATED 20.01.2025
Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JUDICIAL
FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MALAPPURAM,
IN CMP NO. 271/2025, DATED 27.01.2025
