IMPORTANT POINT
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, emphasizing the need for courts to grant bail when warranted, especially when conditions are satisfied.

ORDER :

This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita .

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.36/2025 of Kakkoor Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 376 (1) , 376 (2)(n) , 354D (1)(i) , 366 of IPC , 63(1), 63(d)(vi), 64(2)(m), 78(1)(i), 87 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Secs.3(a) , 4 (1) , 11 (iv) and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act .

3. The prosecution case is that the accused promised to marry the victim and had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions. The victim is a minor girl. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences.

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

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is not correct. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the victim is a minor girl.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The petitioner earlier filed an anticipatory bail application before this Court. This Court disposed the same as evident by Annexure-2 order directing the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer. Accordingly, he surrendered on 06.03.2025 and he is in custody from that day onwards. According to the petitioner, he was in a love relationship with the defacto complainant. Now, it is submitted that the matter is settled and an affidavit is filed by the defacto complainant stating that she has no grievance against the petitioner. Simply because the case is settled, this Court cannot grant bail to the petitioner because the victim is a minor at the time of the alleged incident. But the fact remains that the petitioner is in custody from 06.03.2025 onwards. He is aged only 25.Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody from 06.03.2025, I think the petitioner can be released on bail, after imposing stringent conditions.

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 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 Enforcement [2024 KHC 6426] ,