Kerala High Court
S. Jayapandi vs State Of Kerala on 20 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 2208 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:14484
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2208 OF 2025
CRIME NO.304/2025 OF Perumbavoor Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/S:
S. JAYAPANDI
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O SANGILI, 2/200, BARMA COLONY, THIRUVALLUVAR
NAGAR, THANAKKANKULAM, MADURAI, TAMIL NADU, PIN -
625006
BY ADVS.
ARUN SAMUEL
AMRITHA B.
JITHIN BABU A
ANOOD JALAL K.J.
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
SRI. NOUSHAD KA, SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 2208 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:14484
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A. No. 2208 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime
No.304/2025 of Perumbavoor Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable
under Section 316(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for
short 'BNS').
3. The prosecution case is that the applicant is
the guardian of a cowshed owned by Vamana Moorthy Temple
under the Chelamattom Sree Krishna Swamy Temple Trust. It
is alleged that the applicant from 01.11.2024 to 08.02.2025
during the course of his employment, sold 5 cows and 3 calves
belonging to the aforesaid cowshed and thus committed the
2025:KER:14484
alleged offences.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made
out. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is in custody
from 10.02.2025. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that, as per
the report received by him, no criminal antecedents is alleged
against the petitioner.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and Public Prosecutor. The petitioner is in custody
from 10.02.2025. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is
not necessary. The maximum punishment that can be imposed
for the offences under Sec.318(4) BNS is 7 years. Considering
the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the petitioner
can be released on bail, after imposing stringent conditions.
7. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that
2025:KER:14484
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 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.
2025:KER:14484
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 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
2025:KER:14484
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
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
2025:KER:14484
of the case so as to dissuade him 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.
5. If any of the above conditions are violated
by the petitioner, 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
SKS
