Kerala High Court
Vinodkumar M G vs State Of Kerala on 7 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:10032
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 18TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1614 OF 2025
CRIME NO.378/2024 OF ALOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
VINODKUMAR M G
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. GANGADHARAN, MANAKKADAN
HOUSE,
NEAR EDATHAADAN SCHOOL, KANALPALAM, ALOOR
CHALAKUDY, PIN - 680 683.
BY ADVS.
FOUSIYA RAYINMAKI
D.M.NOWFAL
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
BY ADV
G.SUDHEER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:10032
B.A No.1614 of 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.1614 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.378 of 2024 of Aloor Police Station, Thrissur. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), 1860.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner along with two other accused in furtherance of their common intention, promised the 1 st informant to appoint as Assistant Manger in any one of the branches of Kerala Bank at Thrissur District and an amount of 2025:KER:10032 B.A No.1614 of 2025 3 Rs.26 lakhs is obtained from her father. The job is not provided and the amount is not returned.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is not correct. He is not involved in this case. It is also submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 23.12.2024.
6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in four other cases. Three case with similar allegations and one case is registered because the petitioner assaulted the husband of the defacto complainant.
7. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. But, the petitioner is in custody from 23.12.2024. Indefinite 2025:KER:10032 B.A No.1614 of 2025 4 incarceration of the petitioner may not be necessary. But, I make it clear that if the petitioner is involved in similar offence in future, the Investigating Officer is free to file appropriate application before the Jurisdictional Court to cancel the bail, and if such an application is filed the Jurisdictional Court can pass appropriate orders, even though this bail order is passed by this Court. With that condition bail can be granted.
8. 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.
2025:KER:10032 B.A No.1614 of 2025 5
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 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 2025:KER:10032 B.A No.1614 of 2025 6 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)
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 2025:KER:10032 B.A No.1614 of 2025 7 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".
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:
2025:KER:10032 B.A No.1614 of 2025 8
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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional 2025:KER:10032 B.A No.1614 of 2025 9 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