Kerala High Court
Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 4 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
B.A.No.2753 of 2025
1
2025:KER:18017
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. 2753 OF 2025
CRIME NO.70/2025 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.01.2025 IN CRMP
NO.854 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
IRINJALAKUDA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.4:
JOSEPH
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O ROY, ACHANDY HOUSE KOPRAKKALAM DESAM, KODAKARA
VILLAGE MANAKULANGARA P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680684
BY ADVS.
P.K.VARGHESE
M.T.SAMEER
JERRY MATHEW
DEVIKA K.R.
SIYAD UMMER
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SMT.SEETHA.S, SENIOR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.2753 of 2025
2
2025:KER:18017
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.2753 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 04th day of March, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.70 of 2025
of Kodakara Police Station, Thrissur. The above case is registered
against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections
126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110 & 351(3) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').
3. The prosecution case is that, on 20.01.2025,
near St.Joseph Church Kodakara, the accused persons had a
verbal dispute and thereafter the accused persons trespassed into
the defacto complainant's place and assaulted him. The defacto
complainant sustained serious injuries. Hence it is alleged that the
accused committed the above said offences. The petitioner was
arrested on 21.01.2025.
2025:KER:18017
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner earlier approached this Court and this Court granted
permission to move the bail application after three weeks.
Accordingly, the present bail application is filed. It is also
submitted that, accused Nos.1 to 3 were already released on bail
as per order dated 04.03.2025 in B.A. No.2814/2025.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Public Prosecutor. The petitioner earlier
filed a bail application before this Court and that was dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to move it again after
three weeks. Accordingly, the present bail application is filed.
Accused Nos.1 to 3 were already released on bail by this Court as
per order dated 04.03.2025 in B.A. No.2814/2025. The
petitioner was also arrested on the same date. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner can be
2025:KER:18017
released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. There can be
a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Investigating
Officer on all Mondays at 10 AM, till the 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 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
2025:KER:18017
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)
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
2025:KER:18017
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"."
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 him from disclosing
such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
2025:KER:18017
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 all Mondays at 10 AM, till the 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 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
