Kerala High Court
Binu vs State Of Kerala on 31 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
B.A.No.1209 of 2025
1
2025:KER:7695
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 11TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1209 OF 2025
CRIME NO.835/2024 OF MATHILAKOM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 01.01.2025 IN CRMC
NO.1843 OF 2024 OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR /
II ADDITIONAL MACT, THRISSUR
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.4:
BINU
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O MANIKANDAN, OLATT HOUSE, KANDASSANKADAVU
DESOM, KARAMUCK VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680613
BY ADVS.
JITHIN BABU A
ARUN SAMUEL
ANOOD JALAL K.J.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE OF KERALA:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.SRI.NOUSHAD K.A., SENIOR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.1209 of 2025
2
2025:KER:7695
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.1209 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime No.835
of 2024 of Mathilakom Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable
under Sections 126(2), 137(2), 115(2), 118(1), 310(2) and
351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
3. The prosecution case is that on 08.10.2024
at 8.30 hours, son of the defacto complainant and his friend
were riding on a motorcycle, the petitioner along with other
accused hit their car on the motorcycle and kidnapped the
defacto complainant's son and his friend. It is alleged that
during the altercation, the 5th accused snatched the gold
2025:KER:7695
chain having weight of 1½ sovereign from the neck of the
defacto complainant's son. It is also alleged that accused
Nos.1 to 6 jointly robbed two mobile phones and Rs.25,000/-
also.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 13.11.2024.
The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide
any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.
6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that there are
criminal antecedents to the petitioner and he is involved in
three other cases. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that
the investigation in this case is not completed.
7. It is true that the allegations against the
petitioner are very serious. But, the petitioner is in custody
from 13.11.2024. The 5th accused is already released on bail
2025:KER:7695
as per Annexure-3 order. In such circumstances, I think the
petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent
conditions. There can be a direction to the petitioner to
appear before the Investigating Officer on every Monday at
10 a.m., till Final Report is filed. I also make it clear that, if
the petitioner is involved in similar offence in future, the
Investigating Officer is free to file appropriate application
before the Jurisdictional Court to cancel the bail, and if such
an application is filed the Jurisdictional Court can pass
appropriate orders, even though this bail order is passed by
this Court.
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
2025:KER:7695
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.
2025:KER:7695
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
2025:KER:7695
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:7695
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 appear before the
Investigating Officer on every Monday at 10
a.m., till Final Report is filed.
4. Petitioner shall not leave India
2025:KER:7695
without permission of the jurisdictional
Court.
5. 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.
6. 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
DM
