Bail is the rule; refusal is an exception, emphasizing judicial discretion in granting bail based on statutory criteria and due process.

C.S.DIAS, J.

---------------------------------------------

Bail Appl. No. 14804 of 2025 ------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 9^th day of January, 2026 ORDER The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , by the 6^th accused in Crime No.1836/2025 registered by the Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115(2) and 103(1) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 . The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.10.2025.

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

08.10.2025, at around 18.30 hours, the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention and out of their vengeance against the deceased, alleging that he had stolen the gold ornaments of the accused 4 and 5, had wrongfully restrained him, and the accused 1 and 2 punched him and the accused 3 to 5 questioned the deceased regarding the gold ornaments. Thereafter, the accused 6 and 7 punched the victim on his chest and kicked him. As a result, the deceased succumbed to the injuries.

Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

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

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, by Annexure A4 order, this Court has granted bail to the 3^rd accused. Likewise, by Annexure A5 order, the Court of Session, Alappuzha has granted bail to the 5^th accused. The petitioner claims parity with the accused 3 and 5. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 11.10.2025. There is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that if the petitioner is let off on bail, there is every likelihood of him tampering with the evidence and intimidating the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

6. The specific case against the petitioner is that he along with the other accused had wrongfully restrained the deceased and assaulted him, which led to his death. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 11.10.2025, the investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been filed. Moreover, by Annexures A4 and A5 orders, the accused 3 and 5 have been enlarged on bail.

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 g