ORDER : P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023. 2. The petitioner is the 6 th accused in Crime No.868/2024 of Koduvally Police Station, Kozhikode. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 61(2) , 49 , 238 , 333 , 109(1), 336(3), 340(2), 111(3) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ), 2023. 3. The prosecution case is that on 23.12.2024, the petitioner who is the 6th accused in the above crime has arranged an Innova car with registration No.KL. 71 K 6196 and handed over it to accused No.2. He has further created a false number plate displaying the number of the car as KL 71 B 5262 to be affixed to the car. Thereafter, on 24.12.2024 at 01.15 A.M., accused Nos.1 to 5 have trespassed into the room where the defacto complainant's son Muhammad Sali stayed. They were armed with sword and gun. They have hacked the defacto complainant's son with a sword, caused him serious injuries and also fired the gun. After the incident, accused Nos.1 to 5 fled away in another car bearing registration No.KL 57 AB 4187 which was also arranged by the 6th accused who is the petitioner herein. Thereafter, the petitioner has attempted to erase out of the evidence by washing away the blood stains in the Innova car which was used for the commission of the offence. Petitioner along with other 5 accused persons were thus alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 03.01.2025. There is no serious allegation against the petitioner. He has not participated in the actual incident. The counsel also 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 the petitioner has got criminal antecedents. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner and other accused are very serious. But, even as per the prosecution case, the petitioner has not participated in the actual incident happened on 23.12.2024. Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has got criminal antecedents. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner and other accused are very serious. But, even as per the prosecution case, the petitioner has not participated in the actual incident happened on 23.12.2024. The allegation against the petitioner is that he arranged a vehicle to the main accused and the petitioner washed away the blood stains in the vehicle after the incident. Moreover, the petitioner was arrested on 03.01.2025. Now the petitioner is in custody for about 63 days. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. There can be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10.00 AM, till final report is filed. 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 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. 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 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. 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 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: 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. 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 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 all Mondays at 10.00 AM, till final report is filed. 6. 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.