Kerala High Court
Ameen Ajmad vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
B.A.No.3501 of 2025
1
2025:KER:21602
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3501 OF 2025
CRIME NO.120/2025 OF VARANDARAPPALLY POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN BAIL APPL. NO.2308
OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
1 AMEEN AJMAD
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMEDALI, PADIPURA HOUSE, THARIS POST,
KARUVARAKUNDU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676523
2 SANABIL
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O. HAMEED, MANTHARTHODI HOUSE, THARIS POST,
KARUVARAKUNDU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676523
3 RAFEEK@SALAM,
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. KUNJALAVI, KARADI VEEDU, THARIS POST,
KARUVARAKUNDU, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676523
4 AJAML
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O. UMMAR, AMBAYAKODAN HOUSE, KALKUNDU POST,
KARUVARAKUNDU, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676523
5 AJAS
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMEDALI, PADIPPURA HOUSE, THARIS POST,
KARUVARAKUNDU, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676523
BY ADVS.
B.A.No.3501 of 2025
2
2025:KER:21602
VINOD VALLIKAPPAN
R.ANUP
S.SUMITHA
NITHYASREE SIVASANKAR
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SRI.HRITHWIK C.S., SENIOR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.3501 of 2025
3
2025:KER:21602
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3501 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of March, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.120 of
2025 of Varandarappilly Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable
under Sections 126(2), 132, 110 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').
3. The prosecution case is that, on 12-02-2025 at
2.30 am, while the forest officers were on duty checking vehicles
on the Palappilly- Chokkana road, the petitioners drove their
vehicle in a manner as to cause death to the officers and resisted
their search and pushed them, and thereby obstructed them from
doing their official duty. Hence it is alleged that the accused
2025:KER:21602
committed the above said offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1st
petitioner was arrested on 12.02.2025. The other petitioners
were surrendered on 05.03.2025. The counsel submitted that the
petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant
them bail. The counsel also submitted that the custodial
interrogation of the petitioners is also over.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the
allegations against the petitioners are serious. But the 1 st
petitioner is in custody from 12.02.2025 and the other petitioners
are in custody from 05.03.2025. Indefinite incarceration of the
petitioners are not necessary. Considering the facts and
circumstance of the case, I think the petitioners can be released
on bail after imposing stringent conditions.
2025:KER:21602
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
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
2025:KER:21602
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
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
2025:KER:21602
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. Petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a
bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
only) each with two solvent 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 them from disclosing
such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
3. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission
of the jurisdictional Court.
2025:KER:21602
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
suspected.
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
DM
