Kerala High Court

Mohanan vs State Of Kerala on 9 January, 2025

Author:
P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench:
P.V.Kunhikrishnan

BA No.287 of 2025
2025:KER:1290

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 19TH POUSHA, 1946

BAIL APPL. NO. 287 OF 2025

CRIME NO.1196/2024 OF PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN Bail Appl.

NO.10592 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

PETITIONER(S):

MOHANAN
AGED 70 YEARS, S/O KUMARAN PATTATHUPARAMBIL
HOUSE, CHITTILASSERY DESOM, NENMANIKKARA
VILLAGE, PUDUKAD P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680 301

BY ADVS.
JITHIN BABU A
ARUN SAMUEL
ANOOD JALAL K.J.
RESPONDENT(S):
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.:
ADV.SRI.NOUSHAD K.A. - SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BA No.287 of 2025
2025:KER:1290

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
BA No.287 of 2025
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 09th day of January, 2025

ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section

483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita

(BNSS), 2023.

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime

No.1196/2024 of Pudukkad Police Station,

Thrissur. The above case is registered against the

petitioner alleging offences punishable under

Sections 506
,
and
of Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case is that, on

10.11.2021 at about 09.00 PM, the petitioner

committed rape on his own daughter-in-law and

BA No.287 of 2025
2025:KER:1290

thereby committed the above said offences.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The petitioner earlier filed a bail

application before this Court as BA

No.10592/2024. After hearing the counsel for the

petitioner and the Public Prosecutor, this Court

was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner

because of the serious allegation against the

petitioner. At that stage, the counsel for the

petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the bail

application with liberty to move it again after two

weeks and this Court granted liberty. Accordingly,

this second bail application is filed. Now, the

petitioner is in custody for 45 days.

6. It is true that the allegation against the

petitioner is very serious. According to the

BA No.287 of 2025
2025:KER:1290

petitioner, it is a false case foisted against the

petitioner at the instance of the daughter-in-law

of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the son

of the petitioner filed a divorce petition against

the defacto complainant and because of the

same, the present complaint is filed. The

petitioner also produced a disability certificate

showing that, he is having 40% disability.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case and also considering the fact that the

petitioner is in custody from 26.11.2024, 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.

BA No.287 of 2025
2025:KER:1290

7. 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.

8. 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

BA No.287 of 2025
2025:KER:1290

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)

9.
In
Manish Sisodia v. Directorate
of

BA No.287 of 2025
2025:KER:1290

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"."

10. Considering the dictum
laid down in
the

above decisions and considering the facts and

circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is

BA No.287 of 2025
2025:KER:1290

allowed with the following directions:

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.

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

BA No.287 of 2025
2025:KER:1290

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

BA No.287 of 2025
2025:KER:1290

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.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
nvj JUDGE