Principles Of Judicial Discipline Apply To Lower Courts As Well; Co-Accused’s Bail Plea Can’t Be Dismissed Unless There Are Sufficient Reasons: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court allowed a Bail Application of a co-accused under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The Kerala High Court observed that the Bail Application of a co-accused in the same crime cannot be dismissed unless there are sufficient reasons.
The Court was dealing with a Bail Application filed by a co-accused under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
A Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan remarked, “Principles of Judicial Discipline while passing orders applies not only to Constitutional Courts, but to the Sessions courts and Magistrate courts also. If a bail application of one of the accused is allowed and if any bail application is filed by the co-accused in the same crime, unless there are sufficient reasons, the bail application of the co-accused shall not be dismissed. Of course, if the allegation against the accused released on bail is less serious compared to the involvement of the other accused, a distinction can be made.”
Advocate M.B. Shyni represented the Petitioner/Accused while Public Prosecutor Noushad K.A. represented the Respondent/State.
Facts of the Case
The Petitioner was the 8th accused in a crime registered against him and others, alleging offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 324(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). As per the prosecution case, in October 2024, at night, around 15 persons in prosecution of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the informant and his relative. It was alleged that the assailants assaulted them with their hands and hit them with the key of the scooter and thereby the informant sustained grievous injuries.
It was further alleged that the accused damaged the car of the informant as well and took away his phone. Thus, it was alleged that the accused committed the offence. The counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were already released on bail by the Trial Court. It was further contended that the Petitioner’s Bail Application was dismissed by the Principal Sessions Judge without assigning any reason.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, said that the Court concerned should give reason while rejecting bail of the co-accused in the same crime, if one of the accused is released on bail.
Moreover, the Court noted that the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
“Coming back to the facts of this case, as observed earlier, accused Nos.1 to 4 were already released on bail under Section 482 BNSS by the Sessions Court. This Court granted bail to the 7th accused as per the order dated 15.01.2025 in B.A No.11266/2024. The petitioner in this bail application is the 8th accused. Considering the overt act and allegation against the petitioner, who is the 8th accused, the same is less, compared to the allegation against the other accused”, it further noted.
The Court was of the opinion that the Petitioner can be released on bail, invoking the powers under Section 482 BNSS.
“… 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”, it also reiterated.
The Court noted that that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offences, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case
Accordingly, the High Court granted bail to the accused on executing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned.
Cause Title- Manikandan N.P. v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:4592)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates M.B.Shyni, Rajesh Kumar R., V.R.Anilkumar Sarafudheen T., Eldhose Joy, Ajith P.C., and Vishnuja Biju.
Respondent: Public Prosecutor Noushad K.A.
