Kerala High Court
Preethi Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 9 April, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 5145 OF 2025 & conn. cases 1
2025:KER:32821
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 5145 OF 2025
CRIME NO.346/2025 OF Kottayam West Police Station, Kottayam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 02.04.2025 IN CMP NO.3965 OF
2025 OF JUDL. MAGI. OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER/S:
PREETHI MATHEW
AGED 49 YEARS
, DAUGHTER OF A S MATHEW, CAN ASSURE CONSULTANCY
SERVICES, OPPOSITE GENERAL HOSPITAL, VELLAPPALLY LANE,
KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN - 686001
BY ADVS.
LUKE J CHIRAYIL
JACOB VICTOR
NAVANEETH KRISHNAN P.K.
ZAINUDHEEN P.
ARAVIND R. NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION, KODIMATHA, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 686013
OTHER PRESENT:
PP-G SUDHEER
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5232/2025, 5233/2025 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 5145 OF 2025 & conn. cases 2
2025:KER:32821
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 5232 OF 2025
CRIME NO.339/2025 OF Kottayam West Police Station, Kottayam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP NO.3966 OF 2025 OF
JUDL. MAGI. OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER/S:
PREETHI MATHEW
AGED 49 YEARS
DAUGHTER OF A S MATHEW, CAN ASSURE CONSULTANCY
SERVICES, OPPOSITE GENERAL HOSPITAL, VELLAPPALLY LANE,
KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN - 686001
BY ADV LUKE J CHIRAYIL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM SOUTH P.O
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 686013
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP-HRITHWIK C S
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5145/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 5145 OF 2025 & conn. cases 3
2025:KER:32821
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 5233 OF 2025
CRIME NO.315/2025 OF Kottayam West Police Station, Kottayam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.03.2025 IN CMP NO.2537 OF
2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER/S:
PREETHI MATHEW
AGED 49 YEARS
DAUGHTER OF A S MATHEW, CAN ASSURE CONSULTANCY
SERVICES, OPPOSITE GENERAL HOSPITAL, VELLAPPALLY LANE,
KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN - 686001
BY ADV LUKE J CHIRAYIL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM SOUTH P.O,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 686013
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP-HRITHWIK C S
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5145/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 5145 OF 2025 & conn. cases 4
2025:KER:32821
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 5349 OF 2025
CRIME NO.355/2025 OF Kottayam West Police Station, Kottayam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 02.04.2025 IN CMP NO.3964 OF
2025 OF JUDL. MAGI. OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER/S:
PREETHI MATHEW
AGED 49 YEARS
DAUGHTER OF A S MATHEW, CAN ASSURE CONSULTANCY
SERVICES, OPPOSITE GENERAL HOSPITAL, VELLAPPALLY LANE,
KOTTAYAM, KERALA,, PIN - 686001
BY ADVS.
LUKE J CHIRAYIL
NAVANEETH KRISHNAN P.K.
ZAINUDHEEN P.
ARAVIND R. NAIR
JACOB VICTOR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM SOUTH P.O,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 686013
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP-NOUSHAD K A
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5145/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 5145 OF 2025 & conn. cases 5
2025:KER:32821
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 5352 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1606/2024 OF Sasthamcotta Police Station, Kollam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.03.2025 IN CMP NO.475 OF
2025 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA
PETITIONER/S:
PREETHI MATHEW
AGED 49 YEARS
DAUGHTER OF A S MATHEW, CAN ASSURE CONSULTANCY
SERVICES, OPPOSITE GENERAL HOSPITAL, VELLAPPALLY LANE,
KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN - 686001
BY ADVS.
LUKE J CHIRAYIL
NAVANEETH KRISHNAN P.K.
ZAINUDHEEN P.
ARAVIND R. NAIR
JACOB VICTOR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, MANAKKARA, SASTHAMCOTTA
P.O., KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN - 690521
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP-HRITHWIK C S
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5145/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 5145 OF 2025 & conn. cases 6
2025:KER:32821
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A. Nos. 5145, 5232, 5233,
5349 & 5352 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of April, 2025
ORDER
These Bail Applications filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita are connected, and therefore I
am disposing these cases by a common order.
2. Petitioner in these cases is one and the same. The
petitioner is the accused in different crimes registered at Kottayam
West Police Station and Kottayam East Police Station. These cases
are registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable
under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short 'IPC') and also under Sections 10 and 24 of
Emigration Act.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner is
2025:KER:32821
running an institute by name 'Can Assure Consultancy' at
Kottayam. The petitioner is the Managing Director of the said
consultancy. It is alleged that the petitioner cheated the
defacto complainants in these cases by promising that they will
be provided job at Canada, Turkey, USA and Azerbaijan. The
said promise has not been fulfilled and the amount paid is not
returned to the defacto complainants. Hence it is alleged that the
accused committed the offences. The petitioner was arrested on
25.02.2025. Her arrest was recorded subsequently in the other
crimes also. The petitioner is in custody from 25.02.2025.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. It is true that the allegation against the
petitioner is serious. But, the fact remains that the p etitioner is
in custody from 25.02.2025. Indefinite incarceration of the
petitioner is not necessary. The maximum punishment that can be
imposed for the offences alleged are upto 7 years. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner can be
2025:KER:32821
released on bail in these crimes, after imposing stringent
conditions.
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], 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
2025:KER:32821
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)
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
2025:KER:32821
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:
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/her
2025:KER:32821
from 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 she is accused,
or suspected, of the commission of which she
is suspected.
5. The observations and findings in this
order is only for the purpose of deciding this
bail application. The principle laid down by this
Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala
[2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in
this case also.
6. If any of the above conditions are
violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional
Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law,
2025:KER:32821
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
