Bail should be granted as a rule, and refusal constitutes a violation of constitutional rights when conditions of statute are met.

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.1158/2025 registered by the Kanjiramkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2) and 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 ( ). The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.11.2025.

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

07.10.2025, at around 19:30 hours, while the de facto complainant was riding his motorcycle, the accused wrongfully restrained him, uttered obscene words at him and hit him with an iron rod. It is only because the de facto complainant evaded the attack he did not lose his life. However, he sustained fractures on his left eyebrow, left cheek and nose and also loosening of his teeth. 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 totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. There is no material to substantiate his culpability in the crime. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 28.11.2025, 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 wrongfully restrained the de facto complaint and assaulted him with an iron rod and caused grievous injury to him. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 28.11.2025, 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. 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 th