Kerala High Court
Rejeesh K. R vs State Of Kerala on 22 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:4785
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 2ND MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 621 OF 2025
CRIME NO.8/2025 OF Varappuzha Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
REJEESH K. R
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O. RATHNAN, KANADY HOUSE, THURUTHIPURAM KARA,
MOOTHAKUNNAM ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683516
BY ADV VIVEK VENUGOPAL
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI., PIN - 682031
BY ADV
SRI.HRITHWIK C.S -SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 621 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:4785
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.621 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd 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.8 of
2025 of Varappuzha Police Station, Ernakulam registered
alleging offences punishable under Section 79 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and also under Section
11(i) r/w 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (For short POCSO Act). Petitioner was
arrested on 05.01.2025 and he is in custody.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused with
an intention to satisfy his lust, on 31.12.2024, at 4.00 p.m,
while the defacto complainant was returning from school to
her house, the accused who came in a motorcycle stopped
the vehicle and exhibited his private part and thereafter
masturbated in front of her. Hence it is alleged that the
accused committed the offence.
2025:KER:4785
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The petitioner was arrested on 05.01.2025.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
has not committed any offence and the petitioner is ready to
abide by any condition, if this Court grants him bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the
allegation against the petitioner is very serious, but the
petitioner is in custody from 05.01.2025, the maximum
punishment that can be imposed to the petitioner for the
offences alleged are all below seven years. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner can
be released on bail after imposing stringent condition. There
can be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the
Investigating Officer on every Monday at 10.00 a.m, till 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
2025:KER:4785
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
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
2025:KER:4785
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
2025:KER:4785
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:
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.
2025:KER:4785
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
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. Petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on every Monday at
10.00 a.m, till Final Report is filed.
6. If any of the above conditions are
violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional
Court can cancel the bail in accordance to
2025:KER:4785
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
MSA
2025:KER:4785
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 621/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REMAND REPORT
DATED 05.01.2025 FILED BY THE
INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CRIME NO.
8/2025 OF VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION
BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS COURT (FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES
RELATING TO ATROCITIES AND SEXUAL
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN),
ERNAKULAM
