Kerala High Court
Jasir vs State Of Kerala on 10 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 300 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:1714
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 20TH POUSHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 300 OF 2025
CRIME NO.157/2009 OF Muvattupuzha Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/S:
JASIR
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.HASSAN, PERUMALPARAMBIL HOUSE, POOKKAYYIL
KARA, THIROOR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN -
676107
BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI., PIN - 682031
SRI.NOUSHAD KA, SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 300 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:1714
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A. No. 300 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of January, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime
No.157/2009 of Muvattupuzha Police Station. The above
case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120(b), 109, 341,
323, 326, 308 r/w 149 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused
persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly,
attacked the defacto complainant on 30.01.2009, while the
defacto complainant was travelling in a motor cycle with
his friend. The accused persons wrongfully restrained him
2025:KER:1714
and attacked the defacto complainant with a stone on his
head to which the defacto complainant evaded, resulting in
injuries on the face and also loosening of a teeth.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the final report in this case was already filed in the
year 2010 as evident by Annexure-1. In the final report, the
2nd accused is arraigned as one Mr. Yasin. An absconding
charge is filed as far as the above Yasin is concerned.
According to the petitioner, his name is Jasir. Now,the
petitioner is arrested in connection with the above case on
03.01.2025. The petitioner was not aware about the case
and according to the petitioner, he is a resident of
Malappuram. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the
petitioner was absconding.
6. This Court considered the contentions of
2025:KER:1714
the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. This Court
perused the final report, in which the name of the 2 nd
accused is shown as 'Yasin'. But, now the prosecution
submitted that the petitioner is the 2nd accused. The
petitioner is in custody from 03.01.2025. It is also
submitted that some of the accused are discharged.
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.
2025:KER:1714
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. 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)
2025:KER:1714
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 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:
2025:KER:1714
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 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
2025:KER:1714
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
