The High Court · 2025

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PONNANI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679577 SR PP-HRITHWIK C S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 4343 OF 2025 2 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J ............................................ B.A.No.4343 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. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1609/2024 of Ponnani Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 132, 121(1), 110, 296(b), and 351 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short’BNS’), apart from Section 3(2)(e) of PDPP Act, and Section 132 r/w Section 179 of MV Act, and Section 22(a) r/w Section 29 of NDPS Act.

3. The prosecution case is that, at about 2.45PM on 07.12.2024 while the Inspector of Police and his party were on patrolling duty, accusedNos.1 to 4 in furtherance of their common intention, deterred the police officials from discharging their official duties by moving forward the car bearing registration No.KL-54/M-6579, despite the fact that the police signaled them to stop the car, and attempted to kill the Sub Inspector by knocking down him with the car. A1 and A2 utered abusive language BAIL APPL. NO. 4343 OF 2025 3 against the police. The accused criminally intimidated by saying that they would kill the police personnel. Had the de facto complainant not evaded the car attack of the accused persons, he would have died. Thus, the accused are alleged to have committed the aforementioned offences.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 27.02.2025. The learned counsel further submitted that the accused Nos.1 and 2 were already released on bail by the trial court. The learned counsel further submitted that petitioner is willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed upon him.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the bail application, and submitted that petitioners and other accused attacked the police party and one of the police officer sustained fracture. There is criminal antecendents also against the petitioner.

7. This Court considered the allegations of the petitioner and others. Though the allegations raised against the petitioner is serious in nature, petitioner has been in custody since 27.02.2025 and indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary, I think that petitioner can be released on bail. BAIL APPL. NO. 4343 OF 2025 4 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. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4343 OF 2025 5 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".”

11. 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: BAIL APPL. NO. 4343 OF 2025 6

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 petitioners 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4343 OF 2025 7 also.

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 AMV/02/04/2025

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PONNANI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679577 SR PP-HRITHWIK C S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 4343 OF 2025 2 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J ............................................ B.A.No.4343 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. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1609/2024 of Ponnani Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 132, 121(1), 110, 296(b), and 351 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short’BNS’), apart from Section 3(2)(e) of PDPP Act, and Section 132 r/w Section 179 of MV Act, and Section 22(a) r/w Section 29 of NDPS Act.

3. The prosecution case is that, at about 2.45PM on 07.12.2024 while the Inspector of Police and his party were on patrolling duty, accusedNos.1 to 4 in furtherance of their common intention, deterred the police officials from discharging their official duties by moving forward the car bearing registration No.KL-54/M-6579, despite the fact that the police signaled them to stop the car, and attempted to kill the Sub Inspector by knocking down him with the car. A1 and A2 utered abusive language BAIL APPL. NO. 4343 OF 2025 3 against the police. The accused criminally intimidated by saying that they would kill the police personnel. Had the de facto complainant not evaded the car attack of the accused persons, he would have died. Thus, the accused are alleged to have committed the aforementioned offences.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 27.02.2025. The learned counsel further submitted that the accused Nos.1 and 2 were already released on bail by the trial court. The learned counsel further submitted that petitioner is willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed upon him.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the bail application, and submitted that petitioners and other accused attacked the police party and one of the police officer sustained fracture. There is criminal antecendents also against the petitioner.

7. This Court considered the allegations of the petitioner and others. Though the allegations raised against the petitioner is serious in nature, petitioner has been in custody since 27.02.2025 and indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary, I think that petitioner can be released on bail. BAIL APPL. NO. 4343 OF 2025 4 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. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4343 OF 2025 5 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".”

11. 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: BAIL APPL. NO. 4343 OF 2025 6

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 petitioners 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4343 OF 2025 7 also.

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 AMV/02/04/2025