Kerala High Court

Praffin Lopez vs Station House Officer on 14 February, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                                     2025:KER:12508
BAIL APPL. NO. 1937 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. 1937 OF 2025

         CRIME NO.151/2025 OF Vizhinjam Police Station
        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMC NO.320 OF
2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP NO.195 OF
2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,NEYYATTINKARA

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

           PRAFFIN LOPEZ
           AGED 44 YEARS
           S/O.PLASIT LOPEZ, WHITE HOUSE, KOTTAPURAM,
           VIZHINJAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695521
           BY ADV SANU S MALAKEEL


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

    1      STATION HOUSE OFFICER
           VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
           DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
           HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
    2      STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
           HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
           SRI.NOUSHAD.K.A, SR.PP


     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.02.2025,   THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                        2025:KER:12508
BAIL APPL. NO. 1937 OF 2025

                                   2




                 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                  --------------------------------
                    B.A. No.1937 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. Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime

No.151/2025 of Vizhinjam Police Station. The above case is

registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 296(b),

115(2), 118(1), 74, 324(5), 351, 333 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita (for short, BNS).

3. The prosecution case is that, 23-01-2025 at

6:15 pm, while the complainant and her daughter were at home,

the 1st accused struck the door with the iron rod, destroyed a

flower pot and damaged a chair. It is alleged that the 1 st

accused verbally abused the defacto complainant, seized her

hair, tore her nightgown and grabbed her chest. It is further

alleged that the 1st accused struck the defacto complainant on 2025:KER:12508 BAIL APPL. NO. 1937 OF 2025

the chest, shoulder and right arm with his bangle. It is further

alleged that the 1st accused forcibly seized the mobile phone and

destroyed it. The total damage, according to the prosecution, is

Rs.10,000/-.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public

Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner is in custody from 24.01.2025 and the petitioner

is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The

Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted

that there are criminal antecedents to the petitioner and there

are two other cases registered against the petitioner.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the

petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly the petitioner

is in custody from 24.01.2025. The non-bailable offences

alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 118(1), 74 and

333 of BNS. Admittedly the defacto complainant is the mother

in law of the petitioner. Considering the facts and

circumstances, I think the petitioner can be released on bail.

But, this Court in BA No.427/2025 observed that if an offence 2025:KER:12508 BAIL APPL. NO. 1937 OF 2025

of house trespass which is a non-bailable offence coupled with

mischief is committed, the Court can direct the accused to

deposit the amount of damages/half of the amount or even

double the amount of damages as a condition for granting bail.

In this case, the alleged damage is Rs.10,000/-. There can be a

direction to the petitioner to deposit the same.

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 mention here that the Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was 2025:KER:12508 BAIL APPL. NO. 1937 OF 2025

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:

"53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well - settled 2025:KER:12508 BAIL APPL. NO. 1937 OF 2025

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. 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 2025:KER:12508 BAIL APPL. NO. 1937 OF 2025

Investigating Officer for interrogation as

and when required. The petitioner 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. 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.