Bail is the rule; refusal is an exception, provided conditions are satisfied for its grant.

Dated this the 8^th day of January, 2026 O R D E R The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘ BNS S ’, for short) by the sole accused in Crime No.625/2024 registered by the Ramankary Police Station, Alappuzha, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Section s 126 (2), 118(1) and 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( ). The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.09.2024.

2.The crux of the prosecution allegation is that;

on 13.09.2024, at around 22:30 hours, when the de facto complainant was taking water from the tap, the accused person, who is the husband of the de facto complainant, came from behind with scissors and stabbed on her left knee, left elbow and attempted to cause her death. It is only because the de facto complainant blocked the attack, she did not lose her life. Further, when her uncle intervened, the accused stabbed him also. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last one year and three months. The investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been filed. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime. The Trial Court has dismissed the application solely on the ground that the de facto complainant is the wife of the accused. Hence, the application may be allowed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of him intimidating the witnesses and tampering with evidence.

Hence, the application may be dismissed.

6. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner had attacked his wife and attempted to murder her. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 14.09.2024.

7. Recently, in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 INSC 595] , the Honourable Supreme Court has observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well- settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From its experience, it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is the rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, the Honourable Supreme Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts recognize the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception.

8. Similarly, in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India , [2024 INSC 604] , the Honourable Supreme Court has observed in the following lines:

“21. xxxxx 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 will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constituti