Kerala High Court
Daniel @ Dani vs State Of Kerala on 29 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:6974
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 9TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1089 OF 2025
CRIME NO.64/2025 OF Mala Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 20.01.2025 IN CRMP NO.466
OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, CHALAKUDY
PETITIONER/S:
1 DANIEL @ DANI
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O JOY, RESIDING AT KURUPPASSERY HOUSE, POYYA VILLAGE,
POYYA DESOM, POYYA P O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 733
2 SUNIL KUMAR @ SUNI
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O SUGATHAN, RESIDING AT ARUKATTU HOUSE, CHENTHURUTHY
DESOM, POYYA VILLAGE, POYYA P O, THRISSUR,,
PIN - 680 733
3 MURALIKRISHNAN
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O UNNIKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, POYYA
VILLAGE, POYYA DESOM, POYYA P O, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680 733
BY ADVS.
M.K.SUMOD
VIDYA M.K.
THUSHARA.K
DELITA TITUS
FAVAS P.P.
2025:KER:6974
BAIL APPL. NO.1089 OF 2025
2
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER MALA
MALA POLICE STATION THRISSUR RURAL THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680 732
NOUSHAD.K.A, SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:6974
BAIL APPL. NO.1089 OF 2025
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.1089 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioners are the accused No.s 2 to 4 in
Crime No.64/2025 of Mala Police Station Police Station. The
above case is registered against the petitioners and another
alleging offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 296(b),
118(1), 118(2), 110 r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 12.01.2025
at 11:30pm., the accused Nos.1 to 4 in furtherance of their
common intention, 1st accused uttered obscene words against
the 1st informant and wrongfully restrained him and hit him
on his head with an iron pipe and thereby caused fracture to
the bone of left forehead. The 2 nd accused, used a stick and
2025:KER:6974
BAIL APPL. NO.1089 OF 2025
assaulted his left cheek. The other accused also attacked the
victim.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted
that, the petitioners are in custody from 14.01.2025. The
counsel submitted that the fatal injuries sustained by the
victim based on the overtact of the 1 st accused. Petitioners
are accused Nos.2 to 4. The counsel submitted that the
petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions, if this Court
grants them bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. He submitted that, as per the report received by
him, no criminal antecedents is alleged against the
petitioners.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the
allegations against the petitioners are serious. But, the fatal
injuries sustained to the victim based on the overtact of the
2025:KER:6974
BAIL APPL. NO.1089 OF 2025
st
1 accused. Petitioners are in custody from 14.01.2025. No
criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioners.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think
the petitioners can be released on bail 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.
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
2025:KER:6974
BAIL APPL. NO.1089 OF 2025
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 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)
2025:KER:6974
BAIL APPL. NO.1089 OF 2025
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 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".
2025:KER:6974
BAIL APPL. NO.1089 OF 2025
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. Petitioners 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 petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer for interrogation as and
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 him from disclosing such facts
to the Court or to any police officer.
2025:KER:6974
BAIL APPL. NO.1089 OF 2025
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. If any of the above conditions are violated
by the petitioners, 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
SSG
