BAIL APPL. NO. 4345 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:28046 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4345 OF 2025 CRIME NO.246/2025 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 18.03.2025 IN CRMP NO.2262 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, OTTAPPALAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSES NO. 1 TO 8: 1 VINEETHMON N. P. AGED 29 YEARS S/O. VINOD, NJARAPADATH HOUSE, PALAPPURAM P.O., OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679103 2 BIJIN VIJAY P. V. AGED 28 YEARS S/O VIJAYAN PUTHANVEETIL PALAPPURAM P.O OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679103 3 LIJIN VIJAY AGED 20 YEARS S/O VIJAYAN PUTHANVEETIL PALAPPURAM P.O OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679103 4 SIJIN VIJAY P. AGED 24 YEARS S/O VIJAYAN PUTHANVEETIL PALAPPURAM P.O. OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679103 5 SANDHEEP DAS K. AGED 25 YEARS S/O MOHANDAS K, KUZHINJUPOKKIL HOUSE, PALAPPURAM P.O, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679103 BAIL APPL. NO. 4345 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:28046 6 JINIL E. AGED 23 YEARS S/O RAJAKUMARAN, ERIPPATHODI, PALAPPURAM P.O, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679103 BY ADVS. JERRY PETER VIGNESH S. ARUN KUMAR K.P. NAYANA VARGHESE NAMITHA GEORGE GANESH CHANDRAN S. VINOD S. PILLAI RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 PP-G SUDHEER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 4345 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:28046 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J ............................................ B.A.No.4345 of 2025 ...................................... Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2025 ORDER This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.246/2025 of Ottappalam Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Section 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109 r/w Secion 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (for short ‘BNS’). 3. The prosecution case is that on 10.03.2025 petitioners attacked the injured witnesses, hitting them on the head with an iron rod. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is not correct. The counsel submitted that it is a case and counter case. The counsel submitted that, it is a case and counter case and the first case is registered on the basis of a complaint BAIL APPL. NO. 4345 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:28046 of the petitioners as crime No.245/25. It was also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants them bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the accused Nos.3 and 4 have criminal antecedents and that the injuries sustained by the victims are serious in nature. 7. I have considered the rival contentions. 8. Admittedly, the petitioners have been in custody since 11.03.2025. Admittedly there is case and counter case, there are two versions about the same incident. Which version is correct cannot be decided in a bail application. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think bail can be granted to the petitioners after imposing stringent conditions. 9. 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. 10. Moreover, in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India [2024 KHC 6431], the BAIL APPL. NO. 4345 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:28046 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. 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) 11. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4345 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:28046 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".” 12. 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4345 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:28046 so as to dissuade him/her 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.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/s, 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 AMV/02/04/2025