Kerala High Court
Mithunraj.B vs State Of Kerala on 14 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
B.A.No.1887 of 2025
1
2025:KER:12385
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. 1887 OF 2025
CRIME NO.79/2025 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARGOD
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:
1 MITHUNRAJ.B
AGED 27 YEARS
SON OF BHASKARAN, NEAR DURGA TEMPLE, MEEPUGIRI,
KUDLU VILLAGE,R.D.NAGAR, KASARAGOD TALUK,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671121
2 NAVEEN KUMAR
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.MOHANAN (LATE), MEEPUGIRI, KUDLU VILLAGE,
R.D.NAGAR, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT,
PIN - 671121
3 DINESHA
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O.SADANANDA, KARANTHAKKAD HOUSE, NEAR SRIKRISHNA
HOTEL, KARANTHAKKAD, KASABA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD
TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671122
BY ADVS.
A.ARUNKUMAR
S.SHYAM KUMAR
SACHIN GEORGE ARAMBAN
NESILI NAZEER
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
AGED 24 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
B.A.No.1887 of 2025
2
2025:KER:12385
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
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.1887 of 2025
3
2025:KER:12385
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.1887 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.79 of
2025 of Kasargode Police Station. The above case is registered
against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections
189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110 & 190 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').
3. The prosecution case is that, on 23-01-2025 at
08.30 p.m., the accused wrongfully restrained the defacto
complainant and voluntarily caused hurt to him by beating with
hands, helmet and wooden stick and the victim sustained serious
injuries. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the
offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
2025:KER:12385
petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners are in custody from 26.01.2025. 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
application and submitted that there is 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 fact
remains that the petitioners are in custody from 26.01.2025.
Indefinite incarceration of the petitioners is not necessary.
Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, I think the
petitioners can be released on bail after imposing stringent
conditions. There can be a direction to the petitioners to appear
before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10 A.M., till the
final report is filed.
8. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the
2025:KER:12385
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 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
2025:KER:12385
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
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"."
2025:KER:12385
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. 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:12385
the offence of which they are accused, or
suspected, of the commission of which they are
suspected.
5. Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating
Officer on all Mondays at 10 A.M., till the final
report is filed.
6. 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
