Kerala High Court
Rashid vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:11053
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 22ND MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1710 OF 2025
CRIME NO.134/2025 OF NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
RASHID
AGED 25 YEARS, S/O DESTHAKEER, RESIDING AT PUTHUVAL
PUTHEN VEEDU, PACHICODE, VAZHIMUKKU, ATHIYANNOOR
DESOM, ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT,
PIN - 695 123.
BY ADVS.
J.R.PREM NAVAZ
PREETHA RANI M.S.
SUMEEN S.
MUHAMMED SWADIQ
O.MOHAMED BASIL KOYA THANGAL
IRSHAD K.K.
M.R.ALPHY GEORGE
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682 031.
BY ADV
NOUSHAD K.A, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:11053
B.A No.1710 of 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.1710 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime
No.134 of 2025 of Neyyattinkara Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is registered against
the petitioner and another alleging offences punishable
under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 190, 118(2), 115(2), 296(b),
126(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short
'BNS'), 2023.
3. The prosecution case is that on 19.01.2025
at 9:50 p.m., the accused Nos.1 to 5 in prosecution of their
common object, formed into an unlawful assembly and the
accused uttered obscene words against the defacto
2025:KER:11053
complainant and followed the motor cycle ridden by the
defacto complainant. The 2nd accused pulled down the
defacto complainant from his motor cycle and the 1 st
accused using an iron pipe beat at the left hand and left leg
of the defacto complainant causing fracture on his left hand
and injuries on his left leg and right hand. Hence it is
alleged that the accused committed the offence.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 25.01.2025.
The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide
any condition, if this Court grants him bail.
6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the
petitioner has got criminal antecedents and he is involved in
three other cases.
7. This Court considered the contention of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the
2025:KER:11053
allegation against the petitioner is serious and there is some
criminal antecedents against the petitioner. But, the
petitioner is in custody from 25.01.2025. Indefinite
incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think
the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing
stringent conditions. There can be a direction to the
petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer on
every Monday at 10:00 a.m, till Final Report is filed.
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.
2025:KER:11053
9. 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 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,
2025:KER:11053
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)
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
2025:KER:11053
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".
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:11053
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.
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. Petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on every Monday at
10 a.m., till Final Report is filed.
2025:KER:11053
6. 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
AMR
