Kerala High Court

Sunil Kumar.R vs State Of Kerala on 4 March, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                                      2025:KER:17825

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

  TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1946

                    BAIL APPL. NO. 2771 OF 2025

   CRIME NO.169/2025 OF Kasaragod Police Station, Kasargod

        AGAINST   THE    ORDER/JUDGMENT   DATED   21.02.2025   IN   CMP

NO.565     OF     2025    OF   JUDICIAL     MAGISTRATE    OF    FIRST

CLASS ,KASARAGOD

PETITIONER/S:

    1       SUNIL KUMAR.R
            AGED 29 YEARS
            S/O. RAMAKRISHNA ACHARYA, RESIDING AT KAMALA
            NILAYA, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, KUDLU VILLAGE,
            KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671124

    2       HAREESH.P
            AGED 35 YEARS
            S/O. PRABHAKARAN, RESIDING AT SHIVAKRISHNA NILAYA,
            NM COMPOUND. KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT,
            PIN - 671124

    3       VISWAS.K
            AGED 37 YEARS
            S/O. VASUDEVA GATTY, RESIDING AT SHASTHARAM
            NILAYA. VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, KUDLU VILLAGE,
            KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671124

    4       ATHISH
            AGED 38 YEARS
            S/O. VASUDEVA GATTI. RESIDING AT SASTHARAM NILAYA,
            VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD
            DISTRICT, PIN - 671124
                                                       2025:KER:17825
BAIL APPL. NO.2771 OF 2025

                                   2
           BY ADVS.
           T.MADHU
           C.R.SARADAMANI
           RENJISH S. MENON
           ALEENA JOSE
           AVANTHIKA R.
           KARTHIK KRISHNA M.




RESPONDENT/S:

           STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
           KERALA, PIN - 682031

             SEETHA S-SR PP


      THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.03.2025,     THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                  2025:KER:17825
BAIL APPL. NO.2771 OF 2025

                                 3
                  P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                  --------------------------------
                     B.A.No.2771 of 2025
                   -------------------------------
           Dated this the 04th day of March, 2025

                             ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime

No.169/2025 of Kasargod Police Station, registered alleging

offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3),

126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110 and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

3. The prosecution case is that; on 13.02.2025

at about 10.00pm., while the defacto complainant was

standing near the shop of one Chandrahasan situated at

Mannippady in Kudlu village, the accused Nos.1 to 5, after

forming themselves into an unlawful, reached the place in 2

bikes and 1 bullet. Thereupon, the 1st accused assaulted the

defacto complainant on the left cheek by beating with hands.

The assault on the head of the defacto complainant by using 2025:KER:17825 BAIL APPL. NO.2771 OF 2025

nd an iron rod by the 2 accused was timely evaded by him. The

1st accused kicked on the stomach of the defacto complainant

because of which he sustained pain over his belly. When the

defacto complainant placed his hand over the belly, the 1st

accused inflicted bite injuries on the two fingers of the left

hand. The accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 assaulted the brother of

the defacto complainant by beating with hands. When one

Ajesh tried to prevent the assault, the accused Nos.1 to 5

caught hold of him and the 2nd accused inflicted injuries on

the eye of the aforesaid Ajesh by using a punch. Had the

assault on the head of the defacto complainant by using the

iron rod or kick on the stomach was not evaded it would have

resulted in death. The accused assaulted the defacto

complainant because of the previous enmity of the accused

as the 1st accused and his friend were assaulted from near the

Shivkrishna club by the people of the locality of the defacto

complainant around a month back, thereby the accused

committed the above offences is the allegation leveled

against the accused in the above crime.

2025:KER:17825 BAIL APPL. NO.2771 OF 2025

4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the

Public Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted

that, the petitioners are in custody from 14.02.2025. The

counsel also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide

by any conditions, if this Court grants them bail.

6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application. He submitted that there is criminal antecedents

to the 2nd accused, who is the 2nd petitioner.

7. This Court considered the contention of the

petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. The only non-bailable

offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 110

and 118(1) of the BNS. Whether the ingredients of Section

110 BNS is attracted or not is a matter of investigation. I do

not want to make any observation about the same. The other

offence alleged is under Section 118(1) of the BNS, in which

the maximum punishment that can be imposed is only three

years. Petitioners are in custody from 14.02.2025.

Considering the facts and circumstances, I think, the 2025:KER:17825 BAIL APPL. NO.2771 OF 2025

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    focus   was   more   on    the

         activities    of    PFI,    and   therefore,   the

appellant's case could not be properly 2025:KER:17825 BAIL APPL. NO.2771 OF 2025

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:17825 BAIL APPL. NO.2771 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:17825 BAIL APPL. NO.2771 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.