Kerala High Court
Ratheesh @ Pakku vs State Of Kerala on 21 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 2353 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:15153
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2353 OF 2025
CRIME NO.58/2025 OF Pozhiyoor Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/S:
RATHEESH @ PAKKU,
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O RAYMON, VAZHAVILA VEEDU, VELIYAMKOTTUKONAM,
AYIRA DESOM, KARODE VILLAGE., PIN - 695502
BY ADVS.
ANOOJ.J
SRUTHILAKSHMI SHAJI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
POZHIYOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT,, PIN - 695513
SRI.S;SEETHA SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 2353 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:15153
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A. No.2353 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the 5th accused in Crime
No.58/2025 of Pozhiyoor Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences
punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2),189(2), 191(2),
191(3), 115(2) 118(1) and 109 r/w 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
3. The prosecution case is that on 14.01.2025 at
8.45 pm, the accused persons formed themselves into an
unlawful assembly wrongfully restrained the defacto
2025:KER:15153
complainant alleging that the defacto complainant was helping
one Asha's children, whose house was destroyed by the 1 st
accused and his associates earlier. It is alleged that the 1 st
accused attacked him by fisting on his chest and attacked him
with a sword on his head. When the informant prevented the
attack with his left hand, he sustained injury on his left wrist. It
is also alleged that accused Nos. 2 to 6 grabbed informant's
both hands and the 1st accused attacked him with a sword,
inflicting a wound from the chin to the left ear and stabbed him
in the left wrist with a sword. Hence, it is alleged that the
accused committed the offences.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the main overtact is against the 1st accused and the petitioner is
the 5th accused. The petitioner is in custody from 06.02.2025.
He is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him
bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
2025:KER:15153
6. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. After hearing both sides, I
think the petitioner can be released on bail. The petitioner is in
custody from 06.02.2025. The main allegation is against the 1 st
accused. The Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the report
received by her, no criminal antecedents is alleged against the
petitioner. 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
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
2025:KER:15153
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 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
2025:KER:15153
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"."
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
2025:KER:15153
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 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
2025:KER:15153
approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if
there is any violation of the above conditions.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
2025:KER:15153
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2353/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 15.01.2025 IN
CRIME NUMBER 58/2025 REGISTERED BY THE
SUB- INSPECTOR OF POZHIYOOR POLICE STATION
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE
STATION HOUSE OFFICER OF POZHIYOOR POLICE
STATION BEFORE THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II, NEYATTINKARA ON
01.02.2025
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2025
IN CRL.M.P. NO. 821/2025 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE-II, NEYATTINKARA
