Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court, in Bail Application No. 6605 of 2025, granted bail to the two petitioners, accused of assault under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, despite their involvement in multiple past crimes and pending proceedings under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (KAAPA). Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that, “their continued detention is not required in the circumstances of the case,” and allowed the bail on strict conditions.
Facts
The accused were arrested on 01.05.2025 in connection with Crime No. 182/2025 registered at Nattukal Police Station, Palakkad, for offences under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110, and 190 of BNS, 2023. The prosecution alleged that due to prior animosity with the de facto complainant—arising from an earlier case filed by him—the accused had assaulted him using a stone and caused injuries on various parts of his body.
Issues
- Whether bail should be granted to accused with a history of multiple criminal antecedents and KAAPA proceedings.
- Whether the nature of animosity and facts of the assault justify continued custody.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners submitted that they had been in custody since 01.05.2025 and contended that the allegations were fabricated and false, primarily motivated by previous enmity. They urged that no serious injury was caused, and further incarceration was unwarranted, especially considering the bailable nature of the offences under the BNS framework.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Public Prosecutor strongly objected to the bail plea, arguing that the offences were serious in nature, and emphasized that the first accused had 16 prior cases and the second accused had 8 prior cases, in addition to pending KAAPA proceedings. He insisted that their release would likely intimidate witnesses, tamper with evidence, and potentially lead to repeat offences.
Analysis of the Law
The bail application was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs the grant of bail. The court considered the object of bail as not punitive but preventive, and relied on a balanced interpretation between the right to liberty under Article 21 and the interests of justice in ensuring the accused do not misuse their freedom.
Precedent Analysis
While the judgment does not extensively cite earlier precedents, Annexure 2 refers to a prior judgment dated 09.05.2025 in B.A. No. 6285/2025, likely involving similar facts or legal questions. Though the exact content of the cited case is not reproduced in the order, its inclusion suggests the court may have drawn analogical support to justify bail despite criminal antecedents. The lack of reliance on landmark SC rulings (e.g., Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar) implies the court based its reasoning more on facts than jurisprudential doctrine.
Court’s Reasoning
Despite the Public Prosecutor’s objections regarding the past criminal involvement and pending KAAPA proceedings, the Court held that the nature of the alleged assault, the cause being a personal enmity, and the lack of necessity for continued detention justified granting bail. The court imposed stringent bail conditions to address concerns of tampering, absconding, and future offences.
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the bail application subject to the following conditions:
- Each petitioner to execute a bond of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties.
- Appear before the Investigating Officer as required.
- No intimidation or influence on witnesses.
- No tampering with evidence or commission of similar offences.
- No travel outside India without Court permission.
The jurisdictional Court was also empowered to modify or delete conditions, if warranted.
Implications
This judgment reinforces that bail is the rule, and jail is the exception, even for those with a history of criminal cases, if the facts of the offence do not mandate custody. The Kerala High Court has subtly drawn a line between past conduct and present necessity, focusing on individual liberty and proportionality of detention. The ruling could influence future cases under the BNSS regime, especially where animosity and not organized crime is the basis of charges.
Cases Referred
B.A. No. 6285/2025 (Kerala High Court): While the order does not elaborate, this earlier judgment was placed on record by the petitioners as part of Annexure 2. It likely offered precedent or persuasive reasoning for granting bail in similar factual settings.