Kerala High Court
Bibin.T.B vs State Of Kerala on 7 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:502
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 17TH POUSHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 11090 OF 2024
CRIME NO.713/2024 OF KANNAMALI POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2024 IN CRMC NO.3721 OF 2024
OF THE SESSIONS COURT,ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
BIBIN.T.B
AGED 27 YEARS, S/O BAIJU, THEKKINIYATH HOUSE,
NAYARANGADI, KODASSERY P.O, CHALAKKUDU,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 721.
BY ADV
SUBI K.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682 031.
BY ADV
NOUSHAD K.A, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:502
B.A No.11090 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.11090 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 7th 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.713 of 2024 of Kannamaly Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused promised the first informant a job as a Mechanical Maintenance Supervisor in Kuwait, with a salary of Rs.1,55,000/-. Relying on this promise, the first informant paid Rs.4,20,000/- to the accused. However, the accused neither arranged the promised job nor returned the money.
2025:KER:502 B.A No.11090 of 2024 3
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 04.11.2024. The petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.
6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in three other case with similar allegations. But, the Public Prosecutor conceded that the Final Report is filed.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. After hearing both sides and also considering the facts that the petitioner is in custody from 04.11.2024 and the Final Report is already filed, I think bail can be granted to the petitioner after imposing stringent conditions.
8. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The 2025:KER:502 B.A No.11090 of 2024 4 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.
9. 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 2025:KER:502 B.A No.11090 of 2024 5 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 Art.21 of our Constitution." (underline supplied) 2025:KER:502 B.A No.11090 of 2024 6
10. 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 2025:KER:502 B.A No.11090 of 2024 7 and jail is exception".
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 2025:KER:502 B.A No.11090 of 2024 8 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 AMR