Kerala High Court
Anil Raj vs State Of Kerala on 14 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
B.A.Nos.1931 & 1934 of 2025
1
2025:KER:12455
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. 1931 OF 2025
CRIME NO.137/2025 OF PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2 & 3:
1 ANIL RAJ
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. RAVEENDRAN, ITHIKKATT HOUSE, NEAR
THRITHALLUR HOSPITAL, VADANPILLY VILLAGE, PIN -
680614
2 JIREESH
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. GEORGE, KIDANGAN HOUSE, VENDOOR DESOM,
AMBALLUR VILLAGE, PIN - 682315
BY ADV VISHNUPRASAD NAIR
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SRI.HRITHWIK C.S., SENIOR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1934/2025, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.1931 & 1934 of 2025
2
2025:KER:12455
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. 1934 OF 2025
CRIME NO.137/2025 OF PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1:
SUNIL RAJ
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. RAVEENDRAN, ITHIKKATT HOUSE, NEAR
THRITHALLUR HOSPITAL, VADANAPPILLY VILLAGE, PIN -
680614
BY ADV VISHNUPRASAD NAIR
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SRI.G.SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1931/2025, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.1931 & 1934 of 2025
3
2025:KER:12455
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.Nos.1931 & 1934 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2025
ORDER
These Bail Applications are filed under Section 483 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. These bail applications
are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these bail
applications by a common order.
2. Petitioners in these bail applications are the
accused in Crime No.137 of 2025 of Pudukkad Police Station,
Thrissur. The above case is registered against the petitioners
alleging offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 118(1),
351(2), 110, 115(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (for short 'BNS').
3. The prosecution case is that, the defacto
complainant questioned the accused as to why his auto-
rickshaw tyre was constantly getting punctured near the farm of
B.A.Nos.1931 & 1934 of 2025
2025:KER:12455
the accused. Due to the said animosity and in furtherance of
common intention, on 24.01.2025 at 5:30 p.m., when the
defacto complainant reached near the farm of the accused
persons at Kundukadavu desam in his auto-rickshaw, accused
No.1 to 3 wrongfully restrained him and the 1 st accused grabbed
his collar and pulled him down. The 2 nd accused hit on his back
and waist using an iron rod. Whereas the 3 rd accused brandished
sword stick twice towards his neck which resulted in causing
injury to both his ears. On the other hand, if the defacto
complainant had not evaded the hit of the 3rd accused, it would
have resulted in his death. Hence, it is alleged that the accused
committed the offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners are in custody from 25.01.2025. The counsel
submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions
if this Court grant them bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
B.A.Nos.1931 & 1934 of 2025
2025:KER:12455
application. But the Public Prosecutor, as per the report received
by him, submitted that there is no criminal antecedents to the
petitioners.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioners and the Public Public Prosecutor. It is true that the
allegations against the petitioners are serious. But the
petitioners are in custody from 25.01.2025. Considering the
facts and circumstance of the case, I think the petitioners 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
B.A.Nos.1931 & 1934 of 2025
2025:KER:12455
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, 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
B.A.Nos.1931 & 1934 of 2025
2025:KER:12455
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"."
11. Considering the dictum laid down in the above
decision and considering the facts and circumstances of these
cases, these Bail Applications are allowed with the following
directions:
1. Petitioners shall be released on bail on executing
a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
only) each with two solvent sureties each for the
like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional
B.A.Nos.1931 & 1934 of 2025
2025:KER:12455
Court.
2. The petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer for interrogation as and
when required. The petitioners 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 them from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer.
3. Petitioners shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
4. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to
the offence of which they are accused, or
suspected, of the commission of which they are
suspected.
5. If any of the above conditions are violated by
the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can
cancel the bail in accordance to law, even
B.A.Nos.1931 & 1934 of 2025
2025:KER:12455
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
