Kerala High Court
Shanu.M vs State Of Kerala on 14 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
B.A.No.1945 of 2025
1
2025:KER:12328
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 25TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1945 OF 2025
CRIME NO.651/2024 OF KODUMON POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 07.02.2025 IN CRMP
NO.86 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,
PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED:
SHANU.M.
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O MAJEED, BINU MANZIL, PAZHAKULAM.P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691554
BY ADVS.
A.RAJASIMHAN
NIKHIL.A.AZEEZ
VYKHARI.K.U
EESA FARHAN P.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
G.SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.1945 of 2025
2
2025:KER:12328
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.1945 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.651/2024
of Kodumon Police Station registered alleging offences punishable
under Sections 127(2), 115(2), 351(2), 309(6) & 324(4) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short 'BNS').
3. The prosecution case is that, due to the enmity
in collecting sewage waste, the 1 st accused Chanchal and three
others chased and restrained the defacto complainant and his
friends in a white Innova car who were transporting sewage
waste from Pathanamthitta to Kayamkulam and while they were
on wrong route, the petitioner and other accused assaulted them
and forcibly abducted them in a car. It is alleged that a gold
2025:KER:12328
chain was snatched away by the accused. It is also alleged that
an amount of Rs. 23,700/- was also taken by the accused. Hence
it is alleged that the accused committed the above said offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 04.02.2025. The
counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any
conditions if this Court grant him bail. The counsel also
submitted that, even if the entire allegations are accepted, the
offence under Section 309(6) is not attracted.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application and submitted that the petitioner has criminal
antecedents and he is involved in 9 other cases.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Public Prosecutor. It is true that the
allegation against the petitioner is very serious. But, from the
facts, it is clear that the intention of the petitioner and other
accused was to assault the victim and not to commit robbery.
2025:KER:12328
Whether the offence under Section 309(6) of the BNS is attracted
is a matter to be investigated by the Investigating authority. I do
not want to make any observation about the same. The
Investigating Officer is free to investigate the matter
untrammeled by any observation in this order. But, considering
the period of detention, I think 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:
"21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must
mention here that the Special Court and the High
2025:KER:12328
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 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
2025:KER:12328
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"."
11. 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.
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
2025:KER:12328
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. 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
DM
