Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; personal liberty must be prioritized unless compelling reasons exist to deny bail.

O R D E R

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

2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.99 of 2025 of Vattappara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 74 , 115(2), 296(b), 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNS ’).

3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, who is a member of Vettinad Ward, due to the animosity that the defacto complainant refused to remove the plants placed in front of her nursery namely “Ethen Garden”, on 31.01.2025 at about 10:30 a.m., the accused came to her nursery and after uttering obscene words slapped her left cheek and kicked her after causing mischief by destroying the plants worth Rs.25,000/-. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

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

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only non-bailable offence alleged is under Section 74 of BNS . The counsel submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the ingredients of Section 74 of is not attracted. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.

6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner damaged the plants of the defacto complainant, which is her livelihood.

7. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The only non-bailable offence alleged is under Section 74 of BNS . A perusal of the prosecution case would show that the intention of the accused is to assault and commit mischief. In such situation whether the ingredients of Section 74 of is attracted or not, is a matter to be investigated by the Investigating OfÏcer, I do not want to make any observation about the same. But, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail. Moreover, in this case the petitioner trespassed into the nursery of the defacto complainant and committed mischief, thereby the defacto complainant sustained a loss of Rs.25,000/-. In the light of the principle laid down by this Court in B.A Nos.427 and 831 of 2025, I think there can be direction to deposit the damage alleged to be caused by the petitioner subject to the completion of the investigation and trial, if any.

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. 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 arre