Bail should not be denied as punishment. The principle of bail as a rule is reaffirmed.

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.1669/2025 registered by the Irinjalakuda Police Station, Thrissur, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 115 (2), 118(1), 351(2), 296(b), 333 and 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( ). The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

29.10.2025.

2.The gist of the prosecution case is that; on

28.10.2025, at around 16:45 hours, the accused had trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and abused her with obscene words, slapped on her cheek and brandished a cutter towards her neck. When the de facto complainant obstructed the attempt, she sustained injury on her left hand. 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 submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations levelled against him. There is no material to substantiate his involvement in the crime. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 2 ½ months, the investigation in the case is complete and the recovery has been effected. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.

Hence, the application may be allowed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation is in progress. He also stated 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 restrained the de facto complaint and caused hurt to her. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 29.10.2025, the investigation in the case is practically complete and the recovery has been effected. Furthermore, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.

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. On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, particularly on considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 29.10.2025, the investigation in the case is complete and the recovery has been effected, and furthermore, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, I am of the view that the petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions: