Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 477 (KER)

Manimeghala W/o. Vallarasu v. State of Kerala

2025-03-06

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

body2025
ORDER : P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. These Bail Application are filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita . These bail applications are connected and filed by the same petitioners. The petitioners are accused in Crime No. 86/2025 and in Crime No. 1000/2024 of Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode. Crime No 86/2025 of Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Secs.62 r/w 304 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'). Crime No. 1000/2024 of Medical College Police Station is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Secs. 303 (2) of the BNS. 2. The allegation against the petitioners in both these cases is that the petitioners committed theft of gold chains. The petitioner was arrested in crime No.86/2025 on 28.01.2025. Crime No.1000/2024 was registered by the Medical College Police Station, in which the accused is not identified. When the petitioners were questioned, based on the confession, they were implicated as accused in Crime No. 1000/2024 of Medical College Police Station. 3. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 4. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. The petitioners are in custody from 28.01.2025. The maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offences alleged are below 7 years. The Public Prosecutor submitted that there are criminal antecedents to the petitioners. Even then, the petitioners cannot be indefinitely incarcerated. The Public Prosecutor also submitted that the petitioners are the natives of Tamil Nadu. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners will furnish local sureties and the same is recorded. I make it clear that this is not an order from the court. This is a voluntary submission from the counsel for the petitioners. If that is the case, the petitioners can be released on bail, after imposing stringent conditions. 5. 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. 6. 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. 6. 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. 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) 7. 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. 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".” 8. 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 bonds for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) each, with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. The petitioners submit that, they will offer local sureties from the State of Kerala. The same is recorded. 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 so as to dissuade them 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 violated by the petitioners, 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.