IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 17TH MAGHA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 1555 OF 2025 CRIME NO.58/2025 OF VYTHIRI POLICE STATION, WAYANAD AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2025 IN CRMP NO.81 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, KALPETTA PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4:

1 AAKASH AGED 21 YEARS, S/O . SHAYAM BIHARI , GRAM GAHLULYA POST GAHLULYA , SHAHI GRAMIN , BAREILLY , UTTAR PRADESH., PIN – 243 505.

2 SANJAY KUMAR AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. GIRDHARI LAL , GRAM POST AMRITA KHAS , BISALPUR , PILIBHIT , UTTAR PRADESH., PIN – 262 201.

3 PREM PAL AGED 35 YEARS, S/O GULABI RAM, GRAM KUNWARPUR, POST-MOHMMADPUR, BAHERI, UTTAR PRADESH., PIN – 243 201.

4 NARENDRA KUMAR, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O ROSHAN LAL, KUNWARPUR, BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH., PIN – 243 505.

BY ADVS.

KRISHNA PRASAD. S SINDHU S KAMATH SWAPNA S.K. ROHINI NAIR SURAJ KUMAR D.

SUNILKUMAR K.K.

A.KARTHIKA SIVAN RESPONDENT/STATE:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031.

BY ADV HRITHWIK C.S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------

B.A.No.1555 of 2025 -------------------------------

Dated this the 6^th day of February, 2025

O R D E R

This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. Petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.58 of 2025 of Vythiri Police Station, Wayanad. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 303(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’), 2023.

3. The prosecution case is that in between

21.01.2025 at 8.00 a.m. and 22.01.2025 at 2.00 p.m., the petitioners committed theft of 250 metres of Radio Frequency Cable of worth Rs.47,000/-. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.

5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are not correct and the petitioners is in custody from 23.01.2025. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any condition, if this Court grants them bail.

6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor also submitted that the petitioners are residents of State of Uttar Pradesh and if they are released on bail, they will not be available for trial. At this stage, counsel appearing for the petitioners voluntarily submitted that the petitioners are ready to offer local sureties from the Wayanad District. The same is record. I make it clear that this is not an order from this Court and it is a voluntary submission from the counsel for the petitioners on behalf of the petitioners.

7. The petitioners are in custody from

23.01.2025 and the recovery is already effected. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners’ continuous detention is not necessary. The petitioners can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.

8. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement [2019 (16) SCALE 870], after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.

9. Moreover, in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India [2024 KHC 6431], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:

“21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention here that the Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant's case could not be properly appreciated. When a case is mad