Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 808 (KER)

Adarsh S/o Vijayan v. State Of Kerala

2025-04-02

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

body2025
ORDER : 1. These Bail Applications are filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. These bail applications are filed by the accused in Crime No. 163/2025 and Crime No. 167/2025 of Adoor Police Station. The victim in these cases are one and the same. Crime No. 163/2025 is registered alleging offences punishable under Secs. 354A(1)(i), 354D, 366, 376(1) of IPC and Secs. 8 r/w 7, 12 r/w 11(iv), 4(1) r/w 3(a) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and Sec. 84 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short 'JJ Act'). 3. The prosecution case in Crime No. 163/2025 of Adoor Police Station is that the survivor is a minor female studying in plus two course at Adoor Boys Higher Secondary school. She fell in love with the accused. The accused maintained close contact with the survivor over telephone. It is alleged that during the year 2024, in connection with the festival of Thrichethamangalam temple, the accused enticed the survivor from the parental custody to go with him and the victim was sexually abused. 4. Crime No.167/2025 of Adoor Police Station is registered alleging offences punishable under Secs 75(1), 75(1)(ii), 78(1), 87, 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Sec. 84 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), 2015 ('JJ Act') and Secs. 8, 7, 12, 11(iv), 4(1), 3(a), 6, 5 l of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. 5. The allegation in Crime No. 167/2025 is that the victim fell in love with the accused, who works in More Supermarket' and they communicated through their mobile phones and also through their Instagram accounts. It is alleged that the accused committed sexual abuse to the victim. 6. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 7. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner in BA No. 4374/2025 filed BA No. 2331/2025 earlier which was not entertained. This Court granted permission to move after four weeks. Accordingly, the present bail application is filed. 8. It is true that this Court earlier refused to entertain the bail application of the petitioners, because of the seriousness of the cases. This Court granted liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court again, after some time. This Court granted permission to move after four weeks. Accordingly, the present bail application is filed. 8. It is true that this Court earlier refused to entertain the bail application of the petitioners, because of the seriousness of the cases. This Court granted liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court again, after some time. Now, it is submitted that, altogether 11 cases are registered against the petitioner and 9 of them were already released on bail by the trial court. In these cases, the petitioners are in custody from 24.01.2025 and 25.01.2025. Considering the period of detention, I think the petitioners can be released on bail, 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 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. 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 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 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. 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 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.