Kerala High Court
Akhil @ Sachu vs State Of Kerala on 16 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:3128
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 26TH POUSHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 476 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1738/2024 OF Balaramapuram Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
AKHIL @ SACHU
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O SUGUNAN, KULATHINKARA MELE PUTHENVEEDU,
PARAYAKONAM, THALAYAL, BALARAMAPURAM VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695501
BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
SRI.G.SUDHEER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:3128
BAIL APPL. NO.476 OF 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.476 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 16th 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
No1738/2024 of Balaramapuram Police Station, registered
alleging offences punishable under Sections 110, 115(2),
296(b) and 353(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for
short BNS).
3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner
with an intention to cause bodily injury to the defacto
complainant and with an intention to commit culpable
homicide, on 24.12.2024 at about 4:00pm., assaulted the
defacto complainant questioning that he stared at him. It is
2025:KER:3128
BAIL APPL. NO.476 OF 2025
alleged that the petitioner stabbed the defacto complainant
with a knife aiming of the head of the defacto complainant,
which was evaded and caused injury on the back of the head
of the defacto complainant. It is alleged that the accused
committed other offences also.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is in custody from 25.12.2024. The counsel
submitted that no serious injuries sustained to the injured.
The only non bailable offence alleged is Section 110 and
353(3) of the BNS.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. He submitted that the injured sustained a
laceration wound on right part of the head. The Public
Prosecutor submitted that allegations against the petitioner
are serious and this Court may not released the petitioner on
2025:KER:3128
BAIL APPL. NO.476 OF 2025
bail at this stage. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that, as
per the report received by him, no criminal antecedents is
alleged against the petitioner.
7. This Court considered the contention of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the
allegation against the petitioner is serious. But, the petitioner
is in custody from 25.12.2024, no criminal antecedents is
alleged against the petitioner. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, I think petitioner can be released
on bail after imposing stringent conditions.
8. 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
2025:KER:3128
BAIL APPL. NO.476 OF 2025
that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.
9. 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
2025:KER:3128
BAIL APPL. NO.476 OF 2025
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)
10. 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
2025:KER:3128
BAIL APPL. NO.476 OF 2025
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".
Considering the dictum laid down in the above
decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this
2025:KER:3128
BAIL APPL. NO.476 OF 2025
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 of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the Court
or to any police officer.
2025:KER:3128
BAIL APPL. NO.476 OF 2025
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
SSG
