IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 2077 OF 2025 CRIME NO.1891/2024 OF Kodungallur Police Station, Thrissur PETITIONER/S:

JOVIN AGED 34 YEARS S/O JOY, ILANJIKKAL HOUSE, MADAVANA DESAM, ERIYAD VILLAGE, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680666 BY ADVS.

JERRY MATHEW DEVIKA K.R. SIYAD UMMER RESPONDENT/S:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 SRI.NOUSHAD KA, SR.PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

20.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J –-------------------------------------

B.A. No. 2077 of 2025 --------------------------------------

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2025

O R D E R

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

2. The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in crime No.

1891/2024 of Kodungallur Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Secs. 324(4), 324(5), 332(3), 115(2), 74, 75, 79, 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').

3. The prosecution case is that on 25.12.2024 at

7.30 pm, while the defacto complainant, who is a woman and her family were residing at their house, around 10 accused persons trespassed into their house and threatened the defacto complainant and her sister. It is further alleged that, while the incident was going on, the defacto complainant came to the hall of the house and the petitioner caught on her chest. Thereafter, again the accused came there and abused the victims. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences.

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

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a false case foisted against the petitioner. The counsel take me through Annexure-3 FIR, which was registered against the petitioner. In that case, the petitioner already paid fine as evident by Annexure-4. The counsel submitted that the present case is filed only to harass the petitioner. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that no criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioner.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The non-bailable offences alleged are under Secs. 74, 75 and 79 of the BNS. In the facts and circumstances of this case, whether the same is attracted is a matter to be investigated by the investigating officer. I do not want to make any observation about the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail. But, there is allegation that the petitioner trespassed into the residential house and committed mischief. The offence alleged under Sec. 324(4) & (5) is alleged. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the petitioner can be directed to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/-, in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in the order dated 05.02.2025 in BA No.427/2025.

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. 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