Kerala High Court
Adarsh Jayan vs State Of Kerala on 9 April, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
B.A.No.4924 of 2025
1
2025:KER:30772
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. 4924 OF 2025
CRIME NO.277/2025 OF Pallikkathode Police Station, Kottayam
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.2 & 3:
1 ADARSH JAYAN, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O JAYAN V.T.,
PALLIKUNNEL HOUSE, THATHAMPALLIKUNNU BHAGOM,
VAZHOOR KARA, VAZHOOR VILLAGE, VAZHOOR P.O,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686504
2 AKHIL P.S. @ APPU, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O SUNIL KUMAR,
PEEDIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KEECHERIPPADI BHAGOM,
VAZHOOR KARA, VAZHOOR VILLAGE, VAZHOOR P.O,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686504
BY ADV SIJO PATHAPARAMBIL JOSEPH
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
PP-G SUDHEER
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.4924 of 2025
2
2025:KER:30772
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.4924 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 09th day of April, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioners are accused Nos.2 & 3 in Crime
No.277/2025 of Pallickathodu Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable
under Secs. 78(1)(i), 79 & 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (for short 'BNS'), Sections 66E and 67A of the Information
Technology Act and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act.
3. The prosecution case is that the 1st accused and
the defacto complainant were in a love relationship. The said
relationship was broken. Due to this, the 1st accused developed
animosity towards the defacto complainant. The 1st accused
threatened the defacto complainant to publish her nude photos via
social media. It is alleged that the 2 nd accused received nude
2025:KER:30772
photos of the defacto complainant from the 1 st accused and he
shared the nude photos of the defacto complainant to the 3 rd
accused. The specific allegation against the 3 rd accused/2nd
petitioner is that, he shared the nude photographs of the defacto
complainant to his friends via social media. Thus, the accused has
committed the offence as alleged.
4. Admittedly, the petitioners are in custody from
23.03.2025. The main allegation is against the 1 st accused. The
allegation against the petitioners is that they shared the nude
photographs of the defacto complainant received from the 1 st
accused via social media. It is true that the allegation against the
petitioners is also serious. But, they are in custody from
23.03.2025. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
I think the petitioners can be released on bail after imposing
stringent conditions.
5. 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
2025:KER:30772
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.
6. 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 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
2025:KER:30772
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)
7. 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 and jail is exception"."
8. 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:30772
1. Petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a
bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
only) each 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 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.
2025:KER:30772
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
petitioners, 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
DM
