Kerala High Court
Muhammed Maradi vs State Of Kerala on 25 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BA No.3963 of 2025
1
2025:KER:25356
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. 3963 OF 2025
CRIME NO.244/2025 OF MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 12.03.2025 IN CRMC
NO.195 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 24.02.2025 IN CRMP
NO.594 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
MUHAMMED MARADI
AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. VEERANKULTY, MARADI HOUSE,
PADIYANCHALIL, VILAYIL (PO), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN - 673 645
BY ADVS.
HAMZATH ALI V.K.
AYISHA AFRIN A.V.K.
MUHAMMAD SHAMEEL K.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031
BY ADV.:
SRI.HRITHWIK C.S., SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BA No.3963 of 2025
2
2025:KER:25356
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
BA No.3963 of 2025
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
(BNSS), 2023.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime
No.244/2025 of Malappuram Police Station. The
above case is registered against the petitioner
alleging offences punishable under Sections
329(3), 132, 351 and 296(b) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused
is the respondent in one of the case pending
2025:KER:25356
before the Family Court, Malappuram. On
20.02.2025 at 01.30 PM, inside the premises of
the Family Court, Malappuram, the accused
obstructed the official duty of the Bench Clerk of
the said court by uttering obscene words and
threatening him. Thus the accused committed
the offence alleged above.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is in custody from 20.02.2025.
The counsel submitted that the allegation against
the petitioner is not correct. The petitioner is
aged 62 years and he is ready to abide any
condition imposed by this Court, if this Court
grants him bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
2025:KER:25356
application. Public Prosecutor submitted that the
petitioner not only assaulted the Bench Clerk but
also exhibited a poster on the front side of the
Family Court blaming the Family Court Judge.
7. This Court considered the contentions of
the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The
allegation against the petitioner is very serious.
The staff of the courts are part of the judiciary. If
there is any delay in posting an application, the
parties cannot assault the staff attached to the
court. If the allegations are correct, the action of
the petitioner is obstructing the judicial work.
But, the petitioner is a person aged 62 years. He
is in custody from 20.02.2025. Public Prosecutor
submitted that the final report in this case is also
filed. In such circumstances, continued detention
of the petitioner is not necessary. Considering the
2025:KER:25356
facts and circumstances of the case, I think, the
petitioner can be released on bail after imposing
stringent conditions. But, I make it clear that, if
the petitioner commits similar offence in future,
the Investigating Officer can file appropriate
application before the jurisdictional court to
cancel the bail and if such an application is filed,
the jurisdictional court can pass appropriate
orders in it even though this order is passed by
this Court.
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
2025:KER:25356
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
2025:KER:25356
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
2025:KER:25356
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 decisions and considering the facts and
circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is
allowed with the following conditions:
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.
2025:KER:25356
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.
3. Petitioner shall not leave India
without permission of the
jurisdictional Court.
4. Petitioner shall not commit an
offence similar to the offence of
2025:KER:25356
which he is accused, or suspected,
of the commission of which he is
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.
6. If any of the above conditions are
violated by the petitioner, the
jurisdictional Court can cancel the
bail in accordance with law, even
though the bail is granted by this
Court. The prosecution is at liberty
2025:KER:25356
to approach the jurisdictional court
to cancel the bail, if there is any
violation of the above condition.
7. Registry will forward a copy of this
order to the Family Court,
Malappuram.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
nvj JUDGE
