BY AD vs R.SREEHARI

O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.414 of 2025 of Pudukkad Police Station, Thrissur. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 118(1), 110 and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (for short ’BNS’).

3. The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant did not return the money which was taken from the accused on interest. Due to the said animosity, the accused, with an intention of harassing B.A No.5105 of 2025 4 the defacto complainant, on 23.03.2025 at 10:15 p.m., wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant on the road in front of the house of defacto complainant's aunt and thereafter threatened to kill the defacto complainant, if he did not pay back the money. Then the accused hit the defacto complainant on the left knee with an iron rod that he was carrying by which he sat on the ground. While the accused brandished the iron rod at the head of the defacto complainant, he moved away, thereby causing injury on the shoulder. On the other hand, if the defacto complainant had not moved away, the iron rod would have hit on his head and caused a deep wound, which would have resulted in his death. Hence, it is allaged that the accused committed the offences.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. B.A No.5105 of 2025 5

5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 25.03.2025. The counsel submitted that admittedly there is some amount due to the petitioner from the defacto complainant. When the same was demanded, there was a wordy quarrel, which resulted to the incident. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.

6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor also submitted that there is criminal antecedent to the petitioner and the petitioner is involved in 9 other cases. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that 7 of the cases were already disposed and 2 other cases are pending.

7. It is true that there is criminal antecedent to the petitioner. But, the petitioner is in custody from

25.03.2025. It seems that there is some monetary dispute between the petitioner and the defacto B.A No.5105 of 2025 6 complainant. 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 every Monday at 10 a.m., 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: B.A No.5105 of 2025 7 “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)

10. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of B.A No.5105 of 2025 8 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 decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: B.A No.5105 of 2025

1. Petitioner shall be released on bail 9 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 Investigating Officer 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. B.A No.5105 of 2025

3. Petitioner shall not leave India 10 without permission of 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 suspected.

5. There can be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer on every Monday at 10 a.m., till Final Report is filed.

6. 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 B.A No.5105 of 2025 [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is 11 applicable in this case also.

7. 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 AMR

O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.414 of 2025 of Pudukkad Police Station, Thrissur. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 118(1), 110 and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (for short ’BNS’).

3. The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant did not return the money which was taken from the accused on interest. Due to the said animosity, the accused, with an intention of harassing B.A No.5105 of 2025 4 the defacto complainant, on 23.03.2025 at 10:15 p.m., wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant on the road in front of the house of defacto complainant's aunt and thereafter threatened to kill the defacto complainant, if he did not pay back the money. Then the accused hit the defacto complainant on the left knee with an iron rod that he was carrying by which he sat on the ground. While the accused brandished the iron rod at the head of the defacto complainant, he moved away, thereby causing injury on the shoulder. On the other hand, if the defacto complainant had not moved away, the iron rod would have hit on his head and caused a deep wound, which would have resulted in his death. Hence, it is allaged that the accused committed the offences.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. B.A No.5105 of 2025 5

5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 25.03.2025. The counsel submitted that admittedly there is some amount due to the petitioner from the defacto complainant. When the same was demanded, there was a wordy quarrel, which resulted to the incident. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.

6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor also submitted that there is criminal antecedent to the petitioner and the petitioner is involved in 9 other cases. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that 7 of the cases were already disposed and 2 other cases are pending.

7. It is true that there is criminal antecedent to the petitioner. But, the petitioner is in custody from

25.03.2025. It seems that there is some monetary dispute between the petitioner and the defacto B.A No.5105 of 2025 6 complainant. 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 every Monday at 10 a.m., 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: B.A No.5105 of 2025 7 “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)

10. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of B.A No.5105 of 2025 8 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 decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: B.A No.5105 of 2025

1. Petitioner shall be released on bail 9 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 Investigating Officer 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. B.A No.5105 of 2025

3. Petitioner shall not leave India 10 without permission of 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 suspected.

5. There can be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer on every Monday at 10 a.m., till Final Report is filed.

6. 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 B.A No.5105 of 2025 [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is 11 applicable in this case also.

7. 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 AMR