Bail is a rule and refusal is the exception; courts must grant bail when eligible conditions are met.

ORDER

The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( ‘the BNSS ’ for short) 2023, by the sole accused in Crime No.919/2025 registered by the Cherpulaserry Police Station, Palakkad, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 (1)(i) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 and Section 7 r/w Section 8 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 21.12.2025.

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

20.12.2025, at around 10.30 hours, when the victim and her sister walking through the paddy field, the accused went from behind and put his hand through the dress of the victim and pressed her breast. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

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

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The above crime has been registered because of the previous animosity between the petitioner and the victim’s mother. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.12.2025, the investigation in the case is practically complete and the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he will intimidate the victim and tamper with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

6. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that the petitioner had caught hold of the breast of the victim and walked away from the scene of occurrence.

Indisputably, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.12.2025, which is now more than 15 days.

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 Constitution. “

9. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the mat