IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 3439 OF 2025 CRIME NO.157/2025 OF Kumily Police Station, Idukki AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2025 IN CRMC NO.115 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA PETITIONER/S:

DEVEINDRAN AGED 49 YEARS S/O. RAJU, 14/420, PLAPPALLIL, PATHUMMURI MEPPARAI, VELLARAMKUNNU P.O CHAKKUPALLOM, KUMALY, IDUKKI DISTRICT ., PIN - 685509 BY ADVS.

V.H.JASMINE GILDA DAVIS JOHIN JOHNSON JIBI JOHNSON RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KUMALY POLICE STATION, KUMALY P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT,, PIN - 685509 SR PP-NOUSHAD K A THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

19.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

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

B.A.No.3439 of 2025 -------------------------------

Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2025

O R D E R

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

2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.157/2025 of Kumily Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 329, 115(1), 351(2), 324, 74, 75(1) and 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (BNS), 2023.

3. The prosecution case is that; the petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant and her husband by trespassing into the front portion of their residence at Meppara Bhagam on 09.02.2025. It is alleged that the accused fisted on the face of the defacto complainant's husband and also caught hold of her hand and pushed her down. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

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

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the only non-bailable offences alleged are under Sections 74 and 75 of the BNS. Even if the entire allegations are accepted, the ingredients of Sections 74 and 75 of the BNS is not there. Petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.

6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, he conceded that, as per the report received by him from the Investigating Officer, no criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioner.

7. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the intention of the accused is to assault the victim. During the course of that incident, the accused touched the hand of the victim and pushed her. Whether the same would attract Sections 74 & 75 of the BNS is a matter to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. I do not want to make any observation about the same. The maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offence alleged are below seven years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, the petitioner 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. 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 abscon