Kerala High Court
Rahul vs State Of Kerala on 13 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BA Nos.1884 & 2159 of 2025
1
2025:KER:12152
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 24TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1884 OF 2025
CRIME NO.64/2025 OF PEECHI POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 6:
1 RAHUL
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O MURUKAN, AMBALAKUNNATH HOUSE, PEECHI
VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 680653
2 ANIT BINU KURIAKOSE
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O BINU, PANICHITHRAYIL HOUSE, PAYYANAM
DESOM, PEECHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT,.,
PIN - 680653
3 PRINCE,
AGED 42 YEARS
NELLIKKAL HOUSE, PODIPPARA DESOM, PEECHI
VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680653
4 CLINS,
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O VARGHESE, PULINKUNNIL HOUSE,
MAYILATTUMPARA DESOM, PEECHI VILLAGE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680653
5 JIJIN K.J,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O JOHNSON, AGED 32 YEARS, KIZHAKKETHARA
HOUSE, MAYILATTUMPARA DESOM, PEECHI
BA Nos.1884 & 2159 of 2025
2
2025:KER:12152
VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 680653
6 SABIN K.M
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O MANI, KOOTTALAKKAL HOUSE, PATTILAMKUZHI
DESOM, PATTILAMKUZHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR
DISTRICT., PIN - 680653
BY ADV ABRAHAM MATHAN
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/INJURED:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 LIBIN BABU,
S/O BABU, AGED 26 YEARS, MUTHUMARATHIL
HOUSE, CHENNAIPPARA P.O, PEECHI VILLAGE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680653
3 PRAJOD
S/O DENNY, AGED 32 YEARS, PADINJARAYIL
HOUSE, KANNARA P.O, PEECHI VILLAGE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 680652
BY ADVS.
SRI. G. SUDHEER, PP
ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN
C.DHEERAJ RAJAN(K/579/2013)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail
Appl..2159/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
BA Nos.1884 & 2159 of 2025
3
2025:KER:12152
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 24TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2159 OF 2025
CRIME NO.63/2025 OF PEECHI POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED:
PRAJODH
AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. BENNY, PADINJARAYIL
HOUSE, MARAKKAL DESOM, KANARA P.O., PEECHI,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680 652
BY ADVS.
SAIJO HASSAN
SANGEETH MOHAN
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND VICTIM:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT
OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031
2 ANIT BINU KURIAKOSE
AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. BINU, PANICHITHARAYIL
HOUSE, PAYYANAM, PEECHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680653
3 PRINCE
AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, NELLIKKAL,
PODIPPARA DESOM, PEECHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680653
4 RAHUL
BA Nos.1884 & 2159 of 2025
4
2025:KER:12152
AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. MURUGAN, AMBALAKUNNATH
HOUSE, PEECHI DESOM, PEECHI VILLAGE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680653
5 CLINS
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, PULINKUNNIL
HOUSE, MAYILATTUMPARA DESOM, PEECHI DESOM,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680653
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1884/2025, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BA Nos.1884 & 2159 of 2025
5
2025:KER:12152
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
BA Nos.1884 and 2159 of 2025
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of February, 2025
ORDER
These Bail Applications are filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. These two bail applications are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these two cases by a common order.
2. BA No.1884/2025 is filed by the accused in Crime No.64/2025 of Peechi Police Station and BA No.2159/2025 is filed by the accused in Crime No.63/2025 of Peechi Police Station, Thrissur. Admittedly, these cases are case and counter case. The petitioners in Crime No.64/2025 were BA Nos.1884 & 2159 of 2025 6 2025:KER:12152 arrested on different dates ie. 15.01.2025, 16.01.2025 and 19.01.2025. The above cases are registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1) and 109 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The accused in Crime No.63/2025 was arrested on 17.01.2025.
3. When these bail applications came up for consideration, both sides submitted that the matter is settled and the petitioners decided not to proceed with the case registered by them. The victim in Crime No.64/2025 is the accused in Crime No.63/2025 of Peechi Police Station.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The offence alleged is under Section 109 of BNS. Simply because the parties settled the BA Nos.1884 & 2159 of 2025 7 2025:KER:12152 matter, this Court cannot grant bail. But, the petitioners are in custody for a long time. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.
6. 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.
BA Nos.1884 & 2159 of 2025 8 2025:KER:12152
7. 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 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. BA Nos.1884 & 2159 of 2025 9 2025:KER:12152 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)
8. 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 BA Nos.1884 & 2159 of 2025 10 2025:KER:12152 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 these cases, these Bail Applications are allowed with the following conditions:
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. BA Nos.1884 & 2159 of 2025 11 2025:KER:12152 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. 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. If any of the above conditions are BA Nos.1884 & 2159 of 2025 12 2025:KER:12152 violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance with law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victims 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