Kerala High Court
Sudarsan vs State Of Kerala on 16 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:3146
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. 11413 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1205/2024 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SUDARSAN,
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O SUNIL, KARATTUPARAMBIL
HOUSE, KARUKAPPILLY ROAD, PERINGOTTU KARA P.O,
TRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 565.
BY ADVS.
JAMSHEED HAFIZ
T.S.SREEKUTTY
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682 031.
BY ADV
HRITHWIK C.S., SENIOR 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:3146
B.A No.11413 of 2024
:2:
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.11413 of 2024
-------------------------------
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 sole accused in Crime
No.1205 of 2024 of Palarivattom Police Station. The
above case is registered against the petitioner alleging
offences punishable under Sections 333, 351(2), 324(2),
115(2), 126(2) and 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
(BNS), 2023.
3. The prosecution case is that 30.11.2024,
the accused person with an intention to outrage the
modesty of the complainant trespassed into the
Krishnanjali house of the complainant. It is alleged that
the accused inflicted physical injury by twisting the right
2025:KER:3146
hand of the complainant and caught hold the neck of the
complainant and broken the spectacles. Hence, it is
alleged that the accused committed the offence.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the only non-bailable offences alleged are
under Sections 74 and 333 of BNS. The counsel submitted
that the allegations against the petitioner are not correct.
Even if the entire allegations are accepted, ingredients of
Section 74 of BNS is not attracted.
6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that as
per the report received by him, no criminal antecedents
are alleged against the petitioner.
7. This Court considered the contention of
the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The petitioner is
in custody from 01.12.2024. The non-bailable offences
2025:KER:3146
alleged are under Sections 74 and 333 of the BNS.
Whether the ingredients of the above offences are
attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case, is a
matter to be investigated and I do not want to make any
observation about the same. But, considering the fact
that the petitioner is in custody from 01.12.2024, I think
bail can be granted to the petitioner 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 that the accused has the
opportunity of securing fair trial.
2025:KER:3146
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 and jail is
an exception" is a settled law. Even in
a case like the present case where
2025:KER:3146
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
2025:KER:3146
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 case, this Bail Application is allowed with the
following directions:
2025:KER:3146
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
2025:KER:3146
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
AMR
