Kerala High Court
Sujith.P.S vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:10964
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. 1725 OF 2025
CRIME NO.51/2025 OF ERNAKULAM NORTH POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER:
SUJITH.P.S
AGED 39 YEARS,S/O SREEDHARAN. P.A.,
POOVASSWRI HOUSE, BMRA 68, LINE 14,
EDAPPILLY., PIN - 682 024
BY ADVS.
C.A.ANOOP
R.KRISHNA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
2 STATTION HOUSE OFFICER
ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 018.
BY ADV
G.SUDHEER, 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:10964
B.A No.1725 of 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.1725 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 6th accused in Crime
No.51 of 2025 of Ernakulam North Police Station. The
above case is registered against the petitioner and
others alleging offences punishable under Sections
118(2), 110 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for
short 'BNS'), 2023.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused
attacked the injured person and injured sustained a
grievous hurt.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
2025:KER:10964
5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is in custody from
03.02.2025. 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 as per
the report received by him, no criminal antecedent is
alleged against the petitioner. But, the Public Prosecutor
submitted that the petitioner is the main accused in this
case and as per his instruction, the other accused
committed the offence.
7. This Court considered the contention of
the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the
petitioner is in custody from 03.02.2025. The petitioner is
the 6th accused. No criminal antecedent is alleged against
the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, I think continued detention of the petitioner is
not necessary. The petitioner can be released on bail
2025:KER:10964
after imposing stringent condition. 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.
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
2025:KER:10964
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 the statute
are satisfied. The rule also means that
once a case is made out for the grant
2025:KER:10964
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
2025:KER:10964
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:10964
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.
2025:KER:10964
5. Petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on every Monday at
10 a.m., till Final Report is filed.
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
