Kerala High Court
Ansar M vs State Of Kerala on 2 December, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. Nos.9703,9550 & 1
9798 OF 2024
2024:KER:90448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 9703 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1792/2024 OF Changanassery Police Station, Kottayam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP NO.4632 OF 2024
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,CHANGANACHERRY
PETITIONER/S:
BASHEER B.M.
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O ABDUL RAHMAN BABA, BABA MUSLIYARAKATH (H),
PONNANI VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679577
BY ADVS.
ALEX.M.SCARIA
SARITHA THOMAS
SAHL ABDUL KADER
CLARINA CHRISTOPHER P.
ABDULLA V.
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
CHANGANACHERRY, POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, PIN -
682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.RENJITH GEORGE, SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.12.2024, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..9550/2024, 9798/2024, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. Nos.9703,9550 & 2
9798 OF 2024
2024:KER:90448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 9550 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1792/2024 OF Changanassery Police Station, Kottayam
PETITIONER/S:
HAFASAL RAHMAN,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O HAMZA.V, VEETTILAKATH HOUSE,
A.K.ROAD,PONNANI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA., PIN
- 679583
BY ADVS.
REJI R.
YESMA D. ELAVANTHARA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
CHANGANASSERRY POLICE STATION,KOTTAYAM, PIN -
686101
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.12.2024, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..9703/2024 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. Nos.9703,9550 & 3
9798 OF 2024
2024:KER:90448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 9798 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1792/2024 OF Changanassery Police Station, Kottayam
PETITIONER/S:
ANSAR M
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O ABDULLAKUTTY, MARAPPINTE VEETTIL (H),
THEKKEBHAGAM, PONNANI VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM., PIN -
679577
BY ADV P.I.GEORGEKUTTY
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.12.2024, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..9703/2024 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. Nos.9703,9550 & 4
9798 OF 2024
2024:KER:90448
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A. Nos. 9703, 9550 & 9798 of 2024
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2024
ORDER
These Bail Applications are filed under Section Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 1792/2024 of Changanacherry Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Secs. 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short 'BNS').
3. The prosecution case is that the accused in furtherance of their common intention to cause wrongful loss to the defacto complainant and wrongful BAIL APPL. Nos.9703,9550 & 5 9798 OF 2024 2024:KER:90448 gain to the accused made the defacto complainant a member of a Whatsapp group named 'Alankit Security VIP Institutional Share Trading' and after making the defacto complainant believe that he would get 300% profit share, in between 16.08.2024 and on 06.09.2024 obtained a total amount of Rs.99,00,000/-
4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were in custody from 03.10.2024 and the petitioners are entitled to statutory bail. It is submitted that the final report is not filed. If that is the case, the petitioners are entitled to statutory bail.
6. 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], BAIL APPL. Nos.9703,9550 & 6 9798 OF 2024 2024:KER:90448 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.
7. 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 relevant statutes, the same rule BAIL APPL. Nos.9703,9550 & 7 9798 OF 2024 2024:KER:90448 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)
8. 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 APPL. Nos.9703,9550 & 8 9798 OF 2024 2024:KER:90448 "bail is rule and jail is exception"."
9. 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. Petitioners 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 petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or BAIL APPL. Nos.9703,9550 & 9 9798 OF 2024 2024:KER:90448 indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
3. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
4. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.
5. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution BAIL APPL. Nos.9703,9550 & 10 9798 OF 2024 2024:KER:90448 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 BAIL APPL. Nos.9703,9550 & 11 9798 OF 2024 2024:KER:90448 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 9550/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIRNO.1792/2024 OF CHANGANASSERRY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT DATED 18/09/2024 Annexure A2 CRL.M.P NO. 3595/2024 BAIL DISMISSED ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SESSIONS JUDGE KOTTAYAM BAIL APPL. Nos.9703,9550 & 12 9798 OF 2024 2024:KER:90448 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 9798/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 1792/2024 DATED 18/09/2024 IN OF CHANGANASSERY POLICE STATION Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/10/2024 IN CMP NO. 4632 OF 2024 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE – 1 AT CHANGANACHERRY Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/10/2024 IN CRL. M.P. NO. 3338/2024 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE SESSIONS JUDGE'S COURT, KOTTAYAM Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/11/2024 IN CRL. M.P. NO. 3595/2024 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE SESSIONS JUDGE'S COURT, KOTTAYAM BAIL APPL. Nos.9703,9550 & 13 9798 OF 2024 2024:KER:90448 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 9703/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 18/09/2024 IN CRIME NO. 1792 OF 2024 OF CHANGANACHERRY POLICE STATION.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/10/2024 IN CMP NO. 4632 OF 2024 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE – 1 AT CHANGANACHERRY.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/10/2024 IN CRL. M.P. NO. 3338/2024 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE SESSIONS JUDGE'S COURT, KOTTAYAM.
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/11/2024 IN CRL. M.P. NO. 3595/2024 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE SESSIONS JUDGE'S COURT, KOTTAYAM.
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/11/2024 IN CMP NO. 5918 OF 2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1, CHANGANACHERRY.