BAIL APPL. NO. 4488 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:29146 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4488 OF 2025 CRIME NO.806/2024 OF Anchal Police Station, Kollam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.03.2025 IN CMP NO.2893 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, PUNALUR PETITIONER/S: GOKUL KRISHNAN AGED 27 YEARS @ MONU, S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, SREERAGAM, PAVUMBA SOUTH, PAVUMBA P.O., PAVUMBA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690574 BY ADV ALEX K.JOHN RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT: SR PP-NOUSHAD K A THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 4488 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:29146 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J –------------------------------------- B.A. No. 4488 of 2025 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2025 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.806/2024 of Anchal Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 110, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 296(b), 3(5), 35(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and also under Section 27 of the ARMS Act, 1959. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 12.07.2024, at around 14:00 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, had wrongfully restrained the defacto BAIL APPL. NO. 4488 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:29146 complainant and the 1st accused brandished a sword stick against him and threatened to murder him. Then the 2nd accused caught hold of his neck and the 3rd accused struck him with a helmet. The 4th accused held the defacto complainant's legs and the 1st accused inflicted a cut injury on his left leg with a sword. It is only because the defacto complainant warded off the attacks, he did not lose his life. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the above offences. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner earlier filed a bail application under Sec. 482 of the BNSS and that was not entertained and this Court directed to surrender before the investigating officer. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. The BAIL APPL. NO. 4488 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:29146 Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 6. The petitioner filed BA No. 10100/2024 before this Court earlier for anticipatory bail. This Court was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. At that stage, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to surrender before the investigating officer. Accordingly, this Court disposed that bail application as per order dated 09.01.2025 in BA No. 10100/2024 directing the petitioner to surrender. Accordingly, the petitioner surrendered on 25.03.2025. The petitioner is in custody from that day onwards. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. 7. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4488 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:29146 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. 8. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4488 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:29146 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) 9. 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 time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception".” BAIL APPL. NO. 4488 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:29146 9. 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. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4488 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:29146 facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her 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 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. BAIL APPL. NO. 4488 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:29146 6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, 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 SKS