Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail if conditions are satisfied, regardless of the seriousness of allegations.

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

2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.777/2024 of Kalladikode Police Station. The above case is originally registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 281 and 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'). Subsequently, the offences under Secs. 105 and 125(b) of the BNS are added.

3. The prosecution case is that on 12.12.2024 at 3.45 pm, the petitioner drove the lorry through Palakkad- Kozhikode National Highway from Mannarkkad side towards Palakkad side in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life and when the vehicle reached in front of the house of the defacto complainant, the vehicle lost control and hit on another cement lorry, which was coming opposite side from Palakkad. In the accident, the lorry carrying the cement was capsized and four students of Karimba School, who were proceeding through the side of the road happened to be under the cement lorry and they succumbed to their injuries and thus, the petitioner committed the offences.

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

5. The petitioner was arrested on 13.12.2024 and he is in custody since then. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the incident is not happened as alleged by the prosecution. According to the counsel, at the maximum, the offence under Sec. 106(1) BNS alone is attracted and there are no ingredients to attract Sec. 105 BNS. 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 life of the four children lost because of the negligence on the part of the petitioner.

6. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. But, whether the death of the children is because of the negligence on the part of the petitioner or whether there is any ingredients of Sec. 105 BNS is a matter to be investigated and to be decided by the jurisdictional court, at the appropriate stage. Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody from 20.12.2024, I think bail can be granted, 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 o