Kerala High Court
Shamand.A.H vs State Of Kerala on 14 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
B.A.No.1928 of 2025
1
2025:KER:12463
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. 1928 OF 2025
CRIME NO.137/2025 OF POONTHURA POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.02.2025 IN CMP
NO.110 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -V,
NEYYATTINKARA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4:
1 SHAMAND.A.H.
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O ABDUL AZEEZ, SHAMNAD MANZIL, NEAR JUMA MASJID,
BANGLAAVUVILA, CHIRAMUKKU, VEMBAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT NEAR
INTERNATIONAL SWIMMING POOL, KOPPAM, VEMBAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695615
2 NAJEEM SHA
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O ABDUL AZEEZ, SHAMNAD MANZIL, NEAR JUMA MASJID,
BANGLAAVUVILA, CHIRAMUKKU, VEMBAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695615
3 VIJU PRASAD
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O VIJAYAN.K, VIJU PRASAD BHAVAN, OODARU
VELLIKKONAM, THEKKADA, VEMBAYAM.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695615
4 AJITH KUMAR.K.@ AJI
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O KUNJUKRISHNAN, AR BHAVAN, KALLARAKAVU,
KARYAVATTOM, NOW RESIDING AT BABY HOUSE,
CHIRAMUKKU, VEMBAYAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695615
B.A.No.1928 of 2025
2
2025:KER:12463
BY ADV M.R.SARIN
RESPONDENT(S):
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 REVATHY.R
AGED 32 YEARS
D/O RAJESWARI, CHARUVILAKATH VEEDU, POOTTAPPARA,
EIGTH STONE, AYANIKKAD, KARAKULAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT THUMBOTT
HOUSE, TC 78/1891, THARANGINI NAGAR, VALLAKKADAV,
MUTTATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009
3 RENJITH
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O RAJAN, KANAVILA VEEDU, CHIRAMUKKU,
POOVATHOOR.P.O, NEDUMANAGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
NOW RESIDING AT THUMBOTT, TC 78/1891, THARANGINI
NAGAR, VALLAKKADAV, MUTTATHARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009
BY ADVS.
SRI. ABHILASH J
SRI.NOUSHAD K.A., SENIOR 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.1928 of 2025
3
2025:KER:12463
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.1928 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. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.137 of
2025 of Poonthura Police Station. The above case is registered
against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under
Sections 140(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(for short 'BNS').
3. The prosecution case is that, accused Nos.1 to 4
with an intention to obtain money abducted the husband of the
informant from his house and demanded ransom of Rs.80 lakhs
from the informant and threatened her that if the ransom is not
given, they will kill her husband. Hence, it is alleged that the
accused committed the offences. The petitioners were arrested
on 01.02.2025.
2025:KER:12463
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
matter is settled and the defacto complainants appeared through
a counsel. The counsel submitted that the victim has no
grievance against the petitioners.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application and submitted that the allegations against the
petitioners are very serious. It is also submitted that the
petitioners have criminal antecedents.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioners, defacto complainants and the Public Prosecutor.
Simply because the matter is settled, this Court can not grant bail
for an offence under Section 140(2) of the BNS. But the
petitioners are in custody from 01.02.2025. Considering the facts
and circumstances 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
2025:KER:12463
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 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
2025:KER:12463
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 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
2025:KER:12463
decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
this Bail Application is 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
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
2025:KER:12463
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 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
