[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sabu vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:840
BAIL APPL. NO. 14698 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 18TH POUSHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 14698 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1158/2025 OF Kanjiramkulam Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.11.2025 IN CRMC
NO.3300 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT/ RENT
CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING OUT OF
THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 16.12.2025 IN CMP NO.8498 OF 2025 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,NEYYATTINKARA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SABU
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O. BABU. N.,SABU SADANAM, PAMBUKALA - ODAL,
KARUMKULAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ., PIN - 695526
BY ADV SRI.R.GOPAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
SR.PP SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA
2026:KER:840
BAIL APPL. NO. 14698 OF 2025
2
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:840
BAIL APPL. NO. 14698 OF 2025
3
Dated this the 8th day of January, 2026
ORDER
The application is filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS', for
short) by the sole accused in Crime No.1158/2025
registered by the Kanjiramkulam Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram, for allegedly committing the
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 115(2),
118(1), 118(2) and 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (BNS). The petitioner was arrested and remanded to
judicial custody on 28.11.2025.
2.The gravamen of the prosecution case is that; on
07.10.2025, at around 19:30 hours, while the de facto
complainant was riding his motorcycle, the accused
wrongfully restrained him, uttered obscene words at him
2026:KER:840
BAIL APPL. NO. 14698 OF 2025
and hit him with an iron rod. It is only because the de
facto complainant evaded the attack he did not lose his life.
However, he sustained fractures on his left eyebrow, left
cheek and nose and also loosening of his teeth. Thus, the
accused has committed the above offences.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the
accusations levelled against him. There is no material to
substantiate his culpability in the crime. In any given case,
the petitioner has been in judicial custody since
28.11.2025, the investigation in the case is complete and
the recovery has been effected. The petitioner does not
have any criminal antecedents. Hence, the application
may be allowed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
application. He submitted that the investigation is in
2026:KER:840
BAIL APPL. NO. 14698 OF 2025
progress. He also stated that if the petitioner is enlarged
on bail, there is every likelihood of him intimidating the
witnesses and tampering with evidence. Hence, the
application may be dismissed.
6. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner had
wrongfully restrained the de facto complaint and assaulted
him with an iron rod and caused grievous injury to him.
The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial
custody since 28.11.2025, the investigation in the case is
practically complete and the recovery has been effected.
Furthermore, the petitioner does not have any criminal
antecedents.
7. Recently, in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of
Enforcement [2024 INSC 595], the Honourable Supreme
Court has 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 its experience, it appears that the trial
2026:KER:840
BAIL APPL. NO. 14698 OF 2025
courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters
of grant of bail. The principle that bail is the 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, the Honourable Supreme 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 recognize the principle that "bail is the rule
and jail is an exception.
8. Similarly, in Jalaluddin Khan v Union of India,
[2024 INSC 604] the Honourable Supreme Court has
observed in the following lines:
"21. xxxxx 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
Article 21 of our Constitution. "
2026:KER:840
BAIL APPL. NO. 14698 OF 2025
9. On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival
submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed
on record, particularly on considering the fact that the
petitioner has been in judicial custody since 28.11.2025, i.e
for the last 41 days, the investigation in the case is
complete and the recovery has been effected, and
furthermore, the petitioner does not have any criminal
antecedents, I am of the view that the petitioner's further
detention is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow
the bail application.
In the result, the application is allowed, by directing
the petitioner to be released on bail on him 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 court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the
following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Officer on every alternate Saturday between 9 a.m.
2026:KER:840
BAIL APPL. NO. 14698 OF 2025
and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. He shall also
appear before the Investigating Officer as and when
required;
(ii) The petitioner 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 or tamper with the evidence
in any manner, whatsoever;
(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he
is on bail;
(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any,
before the court below at the time of execution of
the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an
affidavit to the effect before the court below on the
date of execution of the bond;
(v) In case of violation of any of the conditions
mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be
empowered to consider the application for
cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on
2026:KER:840
BAIL APPL. NO. 14698 OF 2025
the same, in accordance with law.
(vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail
conditions shall be moved and entertained by the
court below.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm/8/1/2026
2026:KER:840
BAIL APPL. NO. 14698 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 14698 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 1158/2025 OF
KANJIRAMKULAM POLICE STATION DATED
10.10.2025
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2025 IN
CRL.M.C. NO. 3300/2025 OF THE SESSIONS
COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.12.2025 IN
CMP NO. 8229/2025 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, NEYYATTINKAR
Annexure A4 TRUE OF THE ORDER DARTED 16.12.2025 IN CMP
NO. 8498/2025 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT-III, NEYYATTINKARA
