IMPORTANT POINT
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must prioritize personal liberty unless compelling reasons justify arrest.

ORDER :

1. These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. These Bail Applications are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these cases by a common order.

2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 226 of 2025 of Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 132 & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').

3. The prosecution case is that on 02.02.2025, the accused used filthy language and assaulted a police officer, who is the defacto complainant herein.

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

5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the incident is not happened as alleged by the prosecution. Actually, a road traffic accident occurred in which the petitioner in B.A.No.3290/2025 sustained injury. The police officer came there and acted in a negligent manner without taking any proper action. No such incident as alleged is happened is the submission. It is also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.

6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, he submitted that, as per the report received by him from the Investigating Officer, no criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioners.

7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegations against the petitioners are very serious. But the maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offfences alleged are below seven years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioners can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.

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 has7. 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. the opportunity of securing fair trial.

9. Recently the Apex Court in Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2021 (5) KHC 353] considered the point in detail. The relevant paragraph of the above judgment is extracted hereunder:

“12. We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation bec7. 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.omes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it.7. 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. (Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others (1994 KHC 189: (1994) 4 SCC 260: 1994 (1) KLT 919: 1994 (2) KLJ 97: AIR 1994 SC 1349: 1994 CriLJ 1981) ) If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond