Kerala High Court
Pavithran.V vs State Of Kerala on 10 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:1645
BAIL APPL. NO. 11308 OF 2024
1
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. 11308 OF 2024
CRIME NO.635/2024 OF Ambalathara Police Station, Kasargod
PETITIONER/S:
PAVITHRAN.V,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. NARAYANI.V, CHALINGAL MOTTA, HARIPURAM P.O,
PULLUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671531
BY ADVS.
I.V.PRAMOD
AMRUTHA DIWAKAR
RESMI SAJEEVAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
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
10.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:1645
BAIL APPL. NO. 11308 OF 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A. No.11308 of 2024
----------------------------------------------
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 accused in Crime No.635/2024
of Ambalathara Police Station. The above case is registered
against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under
Sections 118(1) and 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for
short, BNS).
3. The prosecution case is that, on 22.12.2024 at
11 pm, when the informant was having food from a temple, the
petitioner assaulted him with a fiber chair. The friends of the
informant prevented the petitioner from further attack. The
petitioner was arrested on 23.12.2024.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
2025:KER:1645
BAIL APPL. NO. 11308 OF 2024
even if the entire allegations are accepted, the non-bailable
offences are under Sections 118(1) and 110 is not attracted.
The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is in custody from
23.11.2024. No serious injury is sustained to the victim. The
Public Prosecutor opposed bail application. But the Public
Prosecutor submitted that as per the report received by him, no
criminal antecedents are alleged against the petitioner.
6. It is true that the allegation against the
petitioner is serious. But the petitioner is in custody from
23.12.2024. No criminal antecedents are also alleged as per the
report received from the Investigating Officer.
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:1645
BAIL APPL. NO. 11308 OF 2024
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:1645
BAIL APPL. NO. 11308 OF 2024
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:
1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on
2025:KER:1645
BAIL APPL. NO. 11308 OF 2024
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/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.
5. If any of the above conditions are violated
2025:KER:1645
BAIL APPL. NO. 11308 OF 2024
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
jv
