Kerala High Court
Isaq K.M vs State Of Kerala on 16 May, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:33886
BAIL APPL. NO. 6433 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 26TH VAISAKHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 6433 OF 2025
CRIME NO.19/2023 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA,
Alappuzha
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 06.05.2025 IN CRMC
NO.492 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER:
ISAQ K.M
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O MOHAMMED.K, 625/1, 7TH HOSAKOTE VILLAGE,
KAMBIBANE POST, SOMAVARAPETE TALUK,KODAGU DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA, PIN - 571237
BY ADV E.C.AHAMED FAZIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CYBER POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA POST,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688012
SR.PP SRI. C.S.HRITHWIK
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:33886
BAIL APPL. NO. 6433 OF 2025
2
C.S.DIAS,J.
====================
B.A.No.6433 of 2025
------------------------------------ --
Dated this the 16th day of May, 2025
ORDER
The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS', for short) by the accused in Crime No.19/2023 of the Alappuzha Cyber Police Station, which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 419, 406, 403 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2008. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 04.04.2025.
2.The gist of the prosecution case is that; on 10.05.2023, the accused with an intention to cheat the de facto complainant had impersonated himself as an authority of Airbnb Pvt. Ltd Company and received 2025:KER:33886 BAIL APPL. NO. 6433 OF 2025 3 Rs.25,33,278/- from the defacto complainant on the false promise of providing him a job. However, the accused failed to provide the job or return the money. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.
3.Heard; the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 42 days, the investigation in the case is complete and the recovery has been effected. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and submitted that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with evidence and intimidate the witnesses. Moreover, since he is a native of Karnataka, he may flee from justice. Hence, the application may be dismissed.
5. The prosecution allegation is that, the 2025:KER:33886 BAIL APPL. NO. 6433 OF 2025 4 petitioner had cheated the de facto complainant. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 42 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and the recovery has been effected.
6. In Jalaluddin Khan v Union of India, [2024 INSC 604] the Honourable Supreme Court has observed in the following lines:
"21. xxxxx 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 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 Article 21 of our Constitution. "
7. On an overall consideration of the facts and the materials placed on record, especially that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 42 2025:KER:33886 BAIL APPL. NO. 6433 OF 2025 5 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, I am of the view that the petitioner's further detention is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application.
In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every third Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. He shall also appear before the Trial Court, as and when directed;
(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the 2025:KER:33886 BAIL APPL. NO. 6433 OF 2025 6 court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;
(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail;
(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;
(v) The petitioner shall leave the territorial jurisdiction of the jurisdictional court only with its previous permission;
(vi) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.
(vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below.
2025:KER:33886 BAIL APPL. NO. 6433 OF 2025 7
(viii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another [2020 (1) KHC 663].
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rmm/16/5/2025