Kerala High Court
Harikuttan K.R vs State Of Kerala on 29 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 851 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:6927
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 9TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 851 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1781/2024 OF Vaikom Police Station, Kottayam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 10.01.2025 IN CMP
NO.216 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,VAIKOM
PETITIONER/S:
HARIKUTTAN K.R
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. MARIKUTTY, KAVUNKAL HOUSE, SAGAR JUNCTION,
KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, IDUKKI TALUK & DISTRICT, PIN -
685508
BY ADVS.
GEORGE MATHEW
SUNIL KUMAR A.G
MATHEW K.T.
GEORGE K.V.
BOBY MATHEW
STEPHY K REGI
ADITHYA BENZEER
MEDHA B.S.
JOHN ZACHARIAH DOMINIC
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BAIL APPL. NO. 851 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:6927
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VAIKOM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, THROUGH
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682031
3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
VAIKOM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, THROUGH
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682031
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 851 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:6927
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A. No. 851 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1781/2024 of Vaikom Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 420 and 370 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused for the purpose of exploitation, induced the defacto complainant and promised him to procure a Data Entry job at Cambodia and thereafter, received via Google pay, Rs.20,000/- from the defacto complainant under the guise of issuance of Visa. It is also alleged that the accused caused the defacto complainant to create fake ID in Facebook and induced the perosons who gave friend requests to deposit funds in cryptocurrency BAIL APPL. NO. 851 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:6927 besides committing cheating.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 08.01.2025. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is also a victim in this case. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that, as per the report received by him from the investigating officer, no criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioner.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is serious. But, the petitioner is in custody from 08.01.2025. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also considering the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents to the petitioner, I think the petitioner can be released on bail, after imposing BAIL APPL. NO. 851 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:6927 stringent conditions.
7. 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.
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 BAIL APPL. NO. 851 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:6927 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 851 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:6927 time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception"."
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 BAIL APPL. NO. 851 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:6927 disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
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 SKS