Kerala High Court
Vijesh K R vs State Of Kerala on 16 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:3205
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. 11278 OF 2024
CRIME NO.2247/2024 OF Angamali Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
VIJESH K R
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O RAJAPPAN, KIZHANGAMPILLY HOUSE, NEAR TO NSS, NORTH
KIDANGOOR, THURAVOOR VILLAGE, PIN - 686572
BY ADVS.
ASHEEK ANTONY
C.P.TENNY
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
SRI.NOUSHAD K.A., 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:3205
BAIL APPL. NO.11278 OF 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.11278 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 2nd accused in Crime
No.2247/2024 of Angamali Police Station, registered against
the petitioner and others, alleging offences punishable under
Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 49, 103(1) and 249(b) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 15.10.2024
at 11.00 PM, the accused numbers 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 committed
murder of one Ashik at Hills Park Hotel at Angamaly and the
petitioner waited outside the bar to observe and thus
committed the offence.
2025:KER:3205
BAIL APPL. NO.11278 OF 2024
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that,
the petitioner is in custody from 16.10.2024 onwards. The
counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any
condition, if this Court grants him bail. The counsel also
submitted that one of the accused is released on bail by this
Court as per Annexure-A1 order.
6. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the
bail application. He submitted that, petitioner is the master
mind behind the attack. The Public Prosecutor submitted that,
this Court granted bail to the 9th accused, because the
allegation against him is only to the effect that, he only
harboured the accused. The Public Prosecutor submitted that,
this Court may not grant bail to the petitioner against whom
there are serious allegations.
7. This Court considered the contention of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the
allegation against the petitioner is very serious. There is
2025:KER:3205
BAIL APPL. NO.11278 OF 2024
specific overtact against the petitioner also. Simply because
the 9th accused is released on bail, as per Annexure-A1, the
petitioner cannot submit that he is entitled bail. But, the
Public Prosecutor submitted that, two other accused were
also granted bail by the Sessions Court. The Public prosecutor
also submitted that the final report is already filed. In such
circumstance, whether the indefinite incarceration of the
petitioner is necessary is the question. Considering the facts
and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner can be
released on bail after imposing stringent conditions, because
the petitioner has to conduct his case in consultation with the
lawyers because the allegation against him is that, he is an
accused in a murder case.
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
2025:KER:3205
BAIL APPL. NO.11278 OF 2024
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
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:3205
BAIL APPL. NO.11278 OF 2024
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 that
2025:KER:3205
BAIL APPL. NO.11278 OF 2024
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:
1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on
executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent
2025:KER:3205
BAIL APPL. NO.11278 OF 2024
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
similar to the offence of which he is
accused, or suspected, of the commission of
which she is suspected.
5. If any of the above conditions are violated
by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can
2025:KER:3205
BAIL APPL. NO.11278 OF 2024
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
