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

ORDER

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

2. Petitioner is the 1^st accused in Crime No.151/2025 of Vizhinjam Police Station. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 296 (b), 115(2), 118(1) , 74 , 324(5) , 351 , 333 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, BNS ).

3. The prosecution case is that, 23-01-2025 at 6:15 pm, while the complainant and her daughter were at home, the 1^st accused struck the door with the iron rod, destroyed a flower pot and damaged a chair. It is alleged that the 1st accused verbally abused the defacto complainant, seized her hair, tore her nightgown and grabbed her chest. It is further alleged that the 1^st accused struck the defacto complainant on the chest, shoulder and right arm with his bangle. It is further alleged that the 1^st accused forcibly seized the mobile phone and destroyed it. The total damage, according to the prosecution, is Rs.10,000/-.

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

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 24.01.2025 and the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that there are criminal antecedents to the petitioner and there are two other cases registered against the petitioner.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly the petitioner is in custody from 24.01.2025. The non-bailable offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 118 (1) , 74 and 333 of BNS . Admittedly the defacto complainant is the mother in law of the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances, I think the petitioner can be released on bail. But, this Court in BA No.427/2025 observed that if an offence of house trespass which is a non-bailable offence coupled with mischief is committed, the Court can direct the accused to deposit the amount of damages/half of the amount or even double the amount of damages as a condition for granting bail. In this case, the alleged damage is Rs.10,000/-. There can be a direction to the petitioner to deposit the same.

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 g