Kerala High Court

Vipin Raj C vs State Of Kerala on 14 February, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                                         2025:KER:12335
BAIL APPL. NO. 1955 OF 2025

                                   1


             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. 1955 OF 2025

        CRIME NO.470/2024 OF PINARAYI POLICE STATION, KANNUR


PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:

    1       VIPIN RAJ C
            AGED 24 YEARS
            S/O.RAMESH BABU, &#8216;SNEHALAYAM', ERUVATTY AMSOM,
            KANALKKARA, VENDUTTAYI, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670741

    2       ADARSH A
            AGED 29 YEARS
            S/O.ASHOKAN MADHAVI NIVAS, PATHIRIYAD AMSOM, PARAMBAYI
            DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670741

            BY ADVS.
            M.P.PRIYESHKUMAR
            SHANAVAS NALAKATH RANDUPURAYIL



RESPONDENT/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

    2       THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
            PINARAYI POLICE STATION, PINARAYI (PO) KANNUR,
            PIN - 670741

            SRI G SUDHEER, PP


     THIS   BAIL   APPLICATION    HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
14.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                      2025:KER:12335
BAIL APPL. NO. 1955 OF 2025

                                    2



                  P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                   --------------------------------
                     B.A. No.1955 of 2025
            ----------------------------------------------
         Dated this the 14th day of February, 2025


                                  ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime

No.470/2024 of Pinarayi Station. The above case is registered

against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under

Sections 192, 238, 324(4), 326(g), 332(b) and 352 read with

Section 3(5) of Bharathiya Nagarik Sanhita (for short, BNS).

The offences under Section 118(e) of the Kerala Police Act and

also under Section 6 of the Kerala Prevention of Private

Property and Payment of Compensation Act (for short, KPP Act)

are also alleged.

3. The prosecution case is that on 08.12.2024 at

midnight, both accused set fire to Priyadarshini Mandhir and CV

Kunhikannan Reading Room which was situated at Kozhur

Kanalkkara in Eruvatty amsom, pouring petrol and causing 2025:KER:12335 BAIL APPL. NO. 1955 OF 2025

damage of Rs.70,000/- and thereby the accused committed the

offences. The petitioners were arrested on 08.12.2024 and

10.12.2024 respectively.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the

Public Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that

that the allegation against the petitioners are not correct and

the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court

grant them bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application and submitted that a reading room which is to be

inaugurated is set fire by the petitioners. It is also submitted

that there is criminal antecedent to the 1 st petitioner and he is

involved in two cases. The Public Prosecutor further submitted

that the offence under Section 6 of the KPP Act is also alleged

and there may be a direction to deposit the compensation

assessed if this Court is inclined to grant bail.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the

petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the

allegation against the petitioners are very serious. But the

petitioners are in custody from 08.12.2024 and 10.12.2024 2025:KER:12335 BAIL APPL. NO. 1955 OF 2025

respectively. Considering the detention period, I think the

petitioners can be released on bail. But the offences alleged

against the petitioners include Sections 332(b) and 324 of BNS

and Section 6 of the KPP Act. As per the preliminary

assessment, the damaged caused is assessed as Rs.70,000/-. I

am of the considered opinion that the petitioners should deposit

this amount before the trial court subject to the final decision in

the investigation and in the trial, if any.

7. 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.

8. 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 2025:KER:12335 BAIL APPL. NO. 1955 OF 2025

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)

9. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of

Enforcement [2024 KHC 6426], also the Hon'ble Supreme

Court observed that:

2025:KER:12335 BAIL APPL. NO. 1955 OF 2025

"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"."

10. 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. Petitioners shall be released on bail on

executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees

Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent

sureties each, each for the like sum to the 2025:KER:12335 BAIL APPL. NO. 1955 OF 2025

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 him/her 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.