Kerala High Court
Muneer vs State Of Kerala on 5 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:18449
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. 2839 OF 2025
CRIME NO.46/2025 OF PERAMBRA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.02.2025 IN BAIL APPL. NO.905 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:
1 MUNEER
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM EDATHUM VELIKATHU
HOUSE, KUTTIYADI (PO) KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN -
673 508.
2 MUFEED
AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. MUNEER EDATHUM VELIKATHU
HOUSE, KUTTIYADI (PO) KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN -
673 508.
3 MUBASHIR
AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. MUNEER EDATHUM VELIKATHU
HOUSE, KUTTIYADI (PO) KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN -
673 508.
4 JUNAID
AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KAREEM PARAMBATHU
MEETHAL, VELAM (PO) KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 508.
BY ADVS.
M.P.PRIYESHKUMAR
SHANAVAS NALAKATH RANDUPURAYIL
2025:KER:18449
B.A No.2839 of 2025
2
RESPONDENT/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PERAMBRA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN - 673 525.
BY ADV
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:18449
B.A No.2839 of 2025
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.2839 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. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime
No.46 of 2025 of Perambra Police Station, Kozhikode. The
above case is registered against the petitioners alleging
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 351(3),
115(2), 118(1), 140(3), 140(4), 142 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita (for short 'BNS'), 2023.
3. The prosecution case is that on 11.01.2025,
the accused No.1 to 3 and the other 3 identifiable persons
restrained and kidnapped the defacto complainant in a red
colour swift car then they put him in a room of the 1 st
petitioner's house and locked the room and beaten him by
using their hand and an iron rod. It is stated that the incident
2025:KER:18449
happened due to an enmity that arose out of the love
relationship of the defacto complainant with the 1 st accused's
daughter, who is aged 16 years.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that as ordered by this Court on Annexure A, the
petitioners surrendered before the Investigating Officer and
they are in custody from 18.02.2025. The counsel submitted
that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this
Court grants them bail.
6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the
allegation against the petitioners is serious. It is also
submitted that Section 309 (4) of BNS is also added. But, the
Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the report received
by him, no criminal antecedent is alleged against the
petitioners.
2025:KER:18449
7. This Court considered the contention of the
petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the
allegation against the petitioners is very serious. The motive
for committing the alleged incident is that the defacto
complainant was going behind the daughter of the 1 st
accused and harassing her sexually. I do not want to make
any observation about the same. The petitioners are in
custody from 18.02.2025. Indefinite incarceration of the
petitioners is not necessary. Moreover, no criminal
antecedent is alleged against the petitioners. Therefore, I
think bail can be granted to the petitioners 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
2025:KER:18449
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 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
2025:KER:18449
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
2025:KER:18449
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:
1. Petitioners shall be released on bail on
executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent
2025:KER:18449
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.
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 is suspected.
2025:KER:18449
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
AMR
