Kerala High Court

Shaijo Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 5 March, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                                   2025:KER:18487
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

   WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2025/14TH PHALGUNA, 1946

                   BAIL APPL. NO. 2800 OF 2025

    CRIME NO.257/2025 OF KALADY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2025 IN CMP NO.232 OF 2025 OF

     JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - IV, PERUMBAVOOR


PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

            SHAIJO JOSEPH
            AGED 41 YEARS, S/O JOSEPH PAYYAPPILLY HOUSE
            POTHIYAKKARA BHAGAM, MATTOOR, KALADY P.O.,
            ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 574.

            BY ADV
            BIBIN VARGHESE


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.1:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.

    2       ASLAM KHAN
            AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL ASSIS,,AYYATHAYIL HOUSE,
            CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
            NOW RESIDING AT APPLE FLATS, FLAT NO.D, C BLOCK,
            MATTOOR VILLAGE KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
            PIN - 683 574.

            BY ADV
            P.M.ARUN DAS
            NOUSHAD K.A., SR.P.P.


        THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                2025:KER:18487
B.A No.2800 of 2025
                                  2
                 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                --------------------------------
                   B.A.No.2800 of 2025
                 -------------------------------
          Dated this the 5th day of March, 2025


                            ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime

No.257 of 2025 of Kalady Police Station, Ernakulam. The

above case is registered against the petitioner and

another alleging offences punishable under Sections

126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita (for short 'BNS'), 2023.

3. The prosecution case is that due to

previous animosity of the accused against the informant

that he passed comment against the wife of the

informant, on 16.02.2025 at 11:30 p.m., the 1 st accused

caught hold on the collar of the informant in front of the 2025:KER:18487

ground floor of the C Block of Apple Flat, where the

informant is residing. It is alleged that the 1 st accused

slapped on his face and the 2nd accused beat the

informant on his face and lips. Accused Nos. 1 to 6

caused injuries on various parts of his body and head.

Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the

offence.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the

Public Prosecutor.

5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is not

correct. No such incident has happened. It is also

submitted that the victim, who is the injured filed an

affidavit before this Court as evident by Annexure A1,

stating that he has no grievance against the petitioner.

The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to

abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.

2025:KER:18487

6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the

allegation against the petitioner is very serious. The

Public Prosecutor also submitted that the petitioner is

having criminal antecedents and he is involved in 14

other cases.

7. This Court considered the contention of

the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Simply because

the victim has no grievance against the petitioner, this

Court cannot grant bail in a case in which the offence

under Section 110 of BNS is alleged. But, the fact remains

that the petitioner is in custody from 17.02.2025.

Indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I

think the petitioner 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 2025:KER:18487

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 2025:KER:18487

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:18487

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 2025:KER:18487

that the trial courts and the High Courts

should recognize the principle that "bail

is rule and jail is exception".