Kerala High Court
Febin vs State Of Kerala on 25 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BA No.3927 of 2025
1
2025:KER:25396
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. 3927 OF 2025
CRIME NO.743/2024 OF PEECHI POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl.
NO.1531 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2:
FEBIN
AGED 26 YEARS, S/O SAJU, NELLISSERY HOUSE,
NADUTHURUTHU DESOM, MELOOR VILLAGE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680 311
BY ADVS.
JERRY MATHEW
DEVIKA K.R.
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.:
SRI.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:
BA No.3927 of 2025
2
2025:KER:25396
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
BA No.3927 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 an accused in Crime
No.743/2024 of Peechi Police Station, Thrissur.
The above case is registered against the
petitioner alleging offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 310(2) and 137(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
3. The prosecution case is that, on
22.09.2024 at about 11.15 PM, while the defacto
2025:KER:25396
complainant and his friend were travelling from
Palakkad to Thrissur in a Swift Dezire car, the
accused 1 to 12 came in three different cars and
intercepted them as they reached the Kallidukk
service road. It is further alleged that the
accused persons forcibly dragged the defacto
complainant and his friend out of their car and
kidnapped them by taking them in the cars in
which the accused came and attacked the defacto
complainant using a hammer and slapped his
friend and extorted 2630 grams of gold
ornaments having a total value of
Rs.1,84,00,000/- which were carried by the
defacto complainant. Hence, it is alleged that the
accused committed the offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
2025:KER:25396
the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is in custody from 22.12.2024.
The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready
to abide any condition imposed by this Court, if
this Court grants him bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. Public Prosecutor submitted that
there is criminal antecedents to the petitioner.
7. This Court considered the contentions of
the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true
that the allegation against the petitioner is very
serious. There is criminal antecedents also to the
petitioner. But the petitioner is in custody for
more than 90 days. The petitioner earlier filed a
bail application before this Court as BA
No.1531/2025. After hearing both sides, this
2025:KER:25396
Court was not inclined to grant bail. At that
stage, the counsel for the petitioner wants to
withdraw the bail application with liberty to move
it again. This Court granted liberty to move the
bail application after three weeks. Accordingly,
the present bail application is filed. Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case and also
considering the fact that the petitioner is in
custody for more than 90 days, I think, the
petitioner can be released on bail after imposing
stringent conditions. There will be a direction to
the petitioner to appear before the Investigating
Officer on first of every month till the trial is over.
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
2025:KER:25396
Chidambaram. P v. Directorate of
Enforcement [2019 (16) SCALE 870], after
considering all the earlier judgmentthe petitioner
to appear before the Investigating Officer on first
of every month till the trial is over.s, 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
2025:KER:25396
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)
10. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of
Enforcement [2024 KHC 6426], also the Hon'ble
2025:KER:25396
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 decisions and considering the facts and
circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is
allowed with the following conditions:
2025:KER:25396
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.
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
2025:KER:25396
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
which he is accused, or suspected,
of the commission of which he is
suspected.
5. The petitioner shall appear before
the Investigating Officer on first of
every month till the trial is over.
6. 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
2025:KER:25396
Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala
[2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is
applicable in this case also.
7. 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 and the
victim are at liberty to approach
the jurisdictional court to cancel
the bail, if there is any violation of
the above condition.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
nvj JUDGE
