Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; personal liberty must be prioritized unless justified otherwise.

O R D E R

This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita .

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.86 of 2025 of Kodungallur Police Station registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 126 (2), 296(b) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 31 (1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act , 2005.

3. The prosecution case is that in violation of the protection order passed by the Grama Nyayalaya Mathilakam on 8/1/2025 at 8,00 pm the accused attacked the defacto complainant who is none other than his own wife from the private bus stand Kodungallur and 9/1/2025 at 8.00 pm, the accused stopped the defacto complainant and uttered obscene words near Central Mall Kodungallur. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said offences.

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

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a false case foisted against the petitioner, and that no such incident happened. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant him bail.

6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that there is criminal antecedents to the petitioner and four other cases are pending against the petitioner. A rowdy history sheet is opened against the petitioner. Admittedly, this is a matrimonial dispute, and the defacto complainant is the wife of the accused. The offences alleged under the BNSS are all bailable. The only non bailable offence is under Section 31 (1) of the DV Act. The maximum punishment that can be imposed is below 7 years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that it is a matrimonial dispute I think this bail application can be allowed on 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. 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 becomes 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. ( 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 OfÏcer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the ofÏcer to arrest the accused.”

9. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2023 KHC 6961], the Apex Court observed that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case.

10. Cons