Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail when warranted, ensuring fair trial rights.

ORDER

These Bail Applications are filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023. These two bail applications are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these two cases by a common order.

2. The petitioners in these bail applications are accused in Crime No.1148/2024 of Kumily Police Station, Idukki. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 189 (2), 190, 191(1), 115(2), 333, 121(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ), Sections 3 , 4(1), 4(2) of Kerala Healthcare Act , Section 3 (1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property (PDPP) Act and also under Section 92(a) and 92(b) of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act , 2016.

3. The prosecution case is that, on 30.12.2024 at 05.10 PM, the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and inflicted bodily harm on the complainant, a disabled nursing assistant at Kumily Family Health Centre with an intention to obstruct his ofÏcial duty and to destroy the government property. It is alleged that the accused No.1 to 6 trespassed into the dressing room and abused the patient whom the complainant was treating and caused physical harm to him with knowledge that he is handicapped. It is also alleged that the accused destroyed public properties like Auto Clave machine, dressing table, chair, spot light etc,.

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

5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were arrested on 31.12.2024 and since then they are in custody. The counsel also submitted that the only non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 333 and 121(1) of BNS and Section 3 (1) of the PDPP Act. The counsel submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the damage caused is only Rs.2,816/-. The counsel also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court, if this Court grant them bail.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner in BA No.400/2025 has got criminal antecedents and he is involved in two other cases.

7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegations against the petitioners are serious. But, the petitioners are in custody from 31.12.2025. 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 has the opportunity of securing fair trial.

9. 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