SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 263

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
VAFA BIN AHAMMED K. P – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. 327/2025



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

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 69 and 138 - Bail application filed by the accused in a case alleging rape and withdrawal from marriage promise - The petitioner was in custody since 20.12.2024 and was granted bail subject to stringent conditions. (Paras 6, 10)

(B) Bail - The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception was reiterated, emphasizing that courts must grant bail when conditions are met, regardless of the seriousness of allegations. (Paras 7, 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused of taking the victim from her home and committing rape after promising to marry her, with the marriage arranged by their parents. (Paras 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner could be released on bail, given the circumstances and duration of custody. (Paras 6, 10)

Issues: The main issue was whether the bail should be granted despite serious allegations against the petitioner. (Paras 5, 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that bail should be granted as a matter of right unless there are compelling reasons to deny it, reaffirming the established legal principle regarding bail. (Paras 7, 10)

Result: Bail application allowed with conditions.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court reiterates that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that courts must grant bail when conditions are satisfied. (!) (!) (!) - The petitioner was in custody since 20.12.2024 and was granted bail subject to stringent conditions; bail was allowed with specific bond and sureties, appearance before IO, non-violation of conditions, and travel restrictions. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The case concerns offences under Sections 69 and 138 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, involving alleged rape and withdrawal from a marriage promise; the court finds that bail can be granted in these circumstances. (!) (!) - The order states that if any conditions are violated, bail may be canceled by the jurisdictional court. (!) - The court relied on the principle that bail should be granted if the case for bail is made out, even where allegations are serious. (!) (!)

What is the legal principle governing bail as a rule and jail as an exception in this Bail Application?

What are the conditions imposed for release on bail in this case and under what circumstances can bail be cancelled?

What is the court's conclusion regarding granting bail despite serious allegations in the context of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the facts presented?


O R D E R

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

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 541/2024 of Vellayil Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 69 and 138 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS).

3. The prosecution case is that parents of the victim and the petitioner had decided upon the marriage of the petitioner and the victim. Thereafter, the petitioner contacted the victim on Instagram. The facts being so, on 26.11.2024, at 1.30 am, the petitioner took the victim from the premises of the house situated in Kozhikode Taluk, Panicker Road in a car and committed rape on her in room No. 218 of Vinayaka Hotel, Palayam. Thereafter, he withdrew from his promise to marry her. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences.

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

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the admitted prosecution case is that the victim accompanied the petitioner at about 1.30 am on 26.11.2024 and stayed in a hotel at Kozhikode. Thereafter, she was dropped at her house at about 5 o' clock. It is also submitted by the petitioner that it is an admitted fact that the marriage between the petitioner and the victim was fixed, at that time. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that serious allegations are there against the petitioner.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody from 20.12.2024. As I mentioned earlier, the admitted prosecution case is that the marriage between the petitioner and the victim was fixed by the parents. It is the admitted case that there was regular contact between the petitioner and the victim. On the particular day at midnight, the victim left her house without informing her parents and stayed in a hotel at Kozhikode and came back on morning at about 5 am. Now, the allegation is that the petitioner withdrew from the marriage. Hence, it is alleged that the offence under Sec. 69 of the BNS is committed. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody from 20.12.2024, I think the petitioner can be released on bail, 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 wil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top