Kerala High Court
Vipin M V vs State Of Kerala on 16 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
B.A.Nos.498 & 735 of 2025
1
2025:KER:3283
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. 498 OF 2025
CRIME NO.772/2024 OF KODUVALLY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
1 VIPIN M V
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O VINOD MOOKKOLA HOUSE, VENMANAD, PIN - 680507
2 HARISH CHANDRAN
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O CHANDRAN M K MARUTHA HOUSE, PUTHUMANASSERY
PAVARTY P O, PIN - 680507
3 VIMAL P R
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O RAVEENDRAN PALUVAI P O CHAVAKKAD VIA,
PIN - 680522
BY ADVS.
JAZIL DEV FERDINANTO
KRIPA PRASAD
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.SRI.NOUSHAD K.A., SENIOR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.01.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..735/2025, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.498 & 735 of 2025
2
2025:KER:3283
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. 735 OF 2025
CRIME NO.772/2024 OF KODUVALLY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 07.01.2025 IN CRMC
NO.2331 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,
KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2:
LATHEESH
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O KESAVAN CHINGATTTU KALAMBU HOUSE
THATHAMAMGALAM P O PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678102
BY ADVS.
S.RAJEEV
V.VINAY
M.S.ANEER
SARATH K.P.
ANILKUMAR C.R.
K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
DIPA V.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.SRI.G.SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.01.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..498/2025, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.498 & 735 of 2025
3
2025:KER:3283
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.Nos.498 & 735 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2025
ORDER
These Bail Application are filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. These bail applications
are connected and therefore I am disposing of these cases by a
common order.
2. Petitioners in these bail applications are accused
in Crime No.772 of 2024 of Koduvally Police Station registered
alleging offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 309(4),
309(6), 310(4), 311, 351(3) r/w 3(5) of the BNS.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 27.11.2024 at
10.10 P.M., while the defacto complainant was going home on
his scooter from his jewellery situated in Koduvally, the
accused came in a car and hit on the defacto complainant's
scooter and thereby caused hurt to him. Thereafter the
accused committed robbery by extorting 01.750 Kg of gold
B.A.Nos.498 & 735 of 2025
2025:KER:3283
ornaments worth Rs.1,25,00,000/-. Hence it is alleged that the
accused committed the above said offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the 1st accused is already released on bail as evident by
Annexure-4 order produced in B.A. No.498/2025. The counsel
submitted that the petitioners in B.A. No.498 of 2025 were
arrested on 30.11.2024 and the petitioner in B.A. No.735 of
2025 was arrested on 29.11.2024. The counsel submitted that
the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court
grant them bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed these bail
applications. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that the 1 st
accused is released on bail.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, this is a
regular bail application. The 1st accused is already released on
bail. In such circumstances, I think the petitioners can be
B.A.Nos.498 & 735 of 2025
2025:KER:3283
released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. There can
be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the
Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 06.00 P.M.
and 07.00 PM till the final report is filed.
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 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
B.A.Nos.498 & 735 of 2025
2025:KER:3283
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)
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 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
B.A.Nos.498 & 735 of 2025
2025:KER:3283
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"."
11. Considering the dictum laid down in the above
decision and considering the facts and circumstances of these
cases, these Bail Applications are allowed with the following
directions:
1. Petitioners shall be released on bail on executing
a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
only) each with two solvent sureties each for
the like sum to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional Court.
2. The petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer for interrogation as and
B.A.Nos.498 & 735 of 2025
2025:KER:3283
when required. The petitioners 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 them from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer.
3. Petitioners shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
4. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to
the offence of which they are accused, or
suspected, of the commission of which they
are suspected.
5. Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating
Officer on every Saturday between 06.00 P.M.
and 07.00 PM till the final report is filed.
6. If any of the above conditions are violated by
the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can
cancel the bail in accordance to law, even
B.A.Nos.498 & 735 of 2025
2025:KER:3283
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
DM
