Sharon Rajesh vs State Of Kerala on 13 March, 2025

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sharon Rajesh vs State Of Kerala on 13 March, 2025

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

B.A.No.3472 of 2025
                                   1

                                                     2025:KER:21309


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
  THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1946
                      BAIL APPL. NO. 3472 OF 2025
   CRIME NO.82/2025 OF KARIKOTTAKARI POLICE STATION, KANNUR
         AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN BAIL APPL. NO.2368
OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER(S)/2ND ACCUSED:

             SHARON RAJESH
             AGED 21 YEARS
             S/O. RAJESH, KUMMBILUVELIL HOUSE, ANGADIKADAVU.P.O,
             KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670706

             BY ADVS.
             CIBI THOMAS
             SWARNA THOMAS
             ANUSREE K.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

     1       STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
             KERALA, PIN - 682031

     2       THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
             KARIKOTTAKARI POLICE STATION, KARIKOTTAKARI, P.O.,
             KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670704

             BY ADV.
             SR PP-HRITHWIK C S

      THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No.3472 of 2025
                                   2

                                                      2025:KER:21309



                     P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                   --------------------------------
                        B.A.No.3472 of 2025
                    -------------------------------
               Dated this the 13th day of March, 2025


                               ORDER

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

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 82/2025 of Karikottakari Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 66E, 67, 67A of the Information Technology Act (for short 'IT Act') and Sec. 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011.

3. The prosecution case is that on 12.02.2025, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 circulated morphed nude images and videos of female students of BSW, teachers and other female staff members of Don Bosco College at Ayyankunnu, through social media. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences.

B.A.No.3472 of 2025

2025:KER:21309

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

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 27.02.2025. The counsel submitted that the only non-bailable offence alleged is under Sec. 67A of the IT Act. The counsel submitted that the co- accused is already released on bail by this Court as per Annexure-III order. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. But the fact remains that the maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offences alleged are below 7 years. Moreover, the petitioner is in custody from 27.02.2025. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail, after imposing stringent conditions.

7. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that B.A.No.3472 of 2025 4 2025:KER:21309 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.

8. 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 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 B.A.No.3472 of 2025 5 2025:KER:21309 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 Art.21 of our Constitution." (underline supplied)

9. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 KHC 6426], also the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:

"53. The Court further 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 our experience, we can say that 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 a 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, this 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 should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception"."

B.A.No.3472 of 2025 6

2025:KER:21309

10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:

1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

2. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

B.A.No.3472 of 2025 7

2025:KER:21309

4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

5. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above conditions.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE DM

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court