Kerala High Court
Viju vs State Of Kerala on 25 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:25206
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 3920 OF 2025
CRIME NO.253/2025 OF MUNAMBOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:
1 VIJU
AGED 52 YEARS, S/O BALAKRISHNAN, MADAVANA
HOUSE, MANAPPILLY, AYYAMPILLY, KUZHUPPILLY
VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682 501.
2 RAMU
AGED 56 YEARS, S/O BALAKRISHNAN, MADAVANA
HOUSE, MANAPPILLY, AYYAMPILLY, KUZHUPPILLY
VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682 501.
BY ADVS.
M.VIVEK
M.R.MADHU
RENEETA VINU
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.
BY ADV
NOUSHAD K.A., SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:25206
B.A No.3920 of 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3920 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioners are the 1st and 2nd accused in
Crime No.253 of 2025 of Munambom Police Station,
Ernakulam. The above case is registered against the
petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections
115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 296(b), 126(2) and 3(5) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (for short'BNS').
3. The prosecution case is that the injured
had plucked mangoes from a mango tree standing on
revenue land adjacent to the work shop of the 1st
accused and for this the accused had enmity towards
the injured. It is alleged that on 12.03.2025, the 1st
2025:KER:25206
accused uttered abusive words towards the injured
and pushed him down. It is also alleged that other
accused also assaulted the victim and the victim
sustained grievous hurt.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the petitioners are in custody from
13.03.2025. 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. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that as
per the report received by him, no criminal antecedent is
alleged against the petitioners.
7. This Court considered the contention of
the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that
the allegation against the petitioners is serious. But, the
2025:KER:25206
petitioners are in custody from 13.03.2025. Indefinite
incarceration of the petitioners is not necessary. No
criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioners.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I
think the 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:
2025:KER:25206
"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 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:25206
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"."
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
2025:KER:25206
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.
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/her
from disclosing such facts to the
2025:KER:25206
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 suspected.
5. The observations and findings in
this order is only for the purpose of
deciding this bail application. The
principle laid down by this Court in
Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala
[2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is
applicable in this case also.
2025:KER:25206
6. 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
2025:KER:25206
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3920/2025
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE
ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BY THE HON'BLE
JFCM, NJARAKKAL IN CRL.M.P.NO. 456 OF
2025 DATED 17-03-2025.
