Kerala High Court
Sivadasan vs State Of Kerala on 27 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:6024
BAIL APPL. NO. 11006 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 7TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 11006 OF 2024
CRIME NO.816/2023 OF Pulpally Police Station, Wayanad
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 11.06.2024 IN CMP NO.1160
OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,
SULTHANBATHERY
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SIVADASAN
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O RAMAKRISHANAN, THEKKEKARA HOUSE, MANALVAYAL
POST, KATHAVAKKUNNU, PULPALLY AMSOM, PIN - 673579
BY ADV RAMESH .P
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
SRI G SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:6024
BAIL APPL. NO. 11006 OF 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A. No.11006 of 2024
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th 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.816/2023
of Pulpally Police Station. The above case is registered against
the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that, the accused
committed the murder of his own son Amaldas on 16/10/2023 at
Kathavakkunnu in Pulpally amsom on account of the family
dispute by hitting on the head of the victim with an axe.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is in custody from 17.10.2023. The counsel
submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if
2025:KER:6024
BAIL APPL. NO. 11006 OF 2024
this Court grant him bail. The counsel also submitted that the
petitioner is suffering from some cardiac problem. The Public
Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the
allegation against the petitioner is very serious.
6. When this bail application came up for
consideration, this Court directed the Registry to get a report
from the trial court about the time required to dispose the case.
The trial court submitted a report in which it is stated that the
RFSL report and the material objects involved in Crime
No.816/2023 of Pulpally Police Station are not received back
after examination from RFSL, Kannur. The same is the reason
for the delay in disposal of the case.
7. It is true that the offence alleged against the
petitioner is very serious. But the petitioner is in custody for
more than one year. The trial is not even started because the
material objects and other reports are not received. Indefinite
incarceration of the petitioner is necessary. The Public
Prosecutor submitted that as per the report received by him
from the Investigating Officer, no criminal antecedents are
alleged against the petitioner.
2025:KER:6024
BAIL APPL. NO. 11006 OF 2024
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
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
2025:KER:6024
BAIL APPL. NO. 11006 OF 2024
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 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
2025:KER:6024
BAIL APPL. NO. 11006 OF 2024
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 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.
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
2025:KER:6024
BAIL APPL. NO. 11006 OF 2024
him/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. 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
jv
