Kerala High Court

Ashraf A vs State Of Kerala on 11 April, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                                2025:KER:31698

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

 FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947

                BAIL APPL. NO. 5340 OF 2025

    CRIME NO.141/2025 OF KAIPAMANGALAM POLICE STATION,

                      THRISSUR, Thrissur

     AGAINST    THE   ORDER/JUDGMENT   DATED   IN   Bail   Appl.

NO.3652 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

PETITIONER/S:

         ASHRAF A.
         AGED 34 YEARS
         EDAPPARA HOUSE, PERAVOOR P.O., KOLAVAMCHAL,
         MANATHANA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670673


         BY ADVS.
         BASIL CHANDY VAVACHAN
         CHARUTHA BHAIJU
         GEORGIE SIMON
         CHANDHANA BHAIJU
         BASIL SAJAN
         FATHIM NAVAS
         KAVYA RANI JAYAPRAKASH
         LEKSHMI PRIYA V.
         BASIL SCARIA
         MUHAMMED SHUHAIB A.S.




RESPONDENT/S:

         STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
         KERALA, PIN - 682031
                                                      2025:KER:31698
BAIL APPL. NO.5340 OF 2025

                                  2


           SRI NOUSHAD K A, SR.PP


     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2025,   THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                              2025:KER:31698
BAIL APPL. NO.5340 OF 2025

                               3


                P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                --------------------------------
                   B.A.No.5340 of 2025
                 -------------------------------
          Dated this the 11th day of April, 2025

                             ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

2. Petitioner is the second accused in Crime

No.141/2025 of Kaipamangalam Police Station, registered

alleging offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

3. The prosecution case is that on 18.02.2025 at

03.40 PM, the accused purchased gold jewellery weighing

sovereigns from Swarnagopuram Jewellery owned by the

defacto complainant and deceived him by falsely claiming

to have transferred an amount of Rs.5,67,000/, when in

fact, no such transfer was made.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the

Public Prosecutor.

2025:KER:31698 BAIL APPL. NO.5340 OF 2025

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner is in custody from 21.02.2025. Petitioner

is ready to abide by any conditions, if this Court grants him

bail.

6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application. He submitted that, there is criminal

antecedents to the petitioner with same set of allegation.

7. This Court considered the contentions of

the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the

there is criminal antecedents to the petitioner. Petitioner

earlier filed a bail application before this Court as B.A

No.3652/2025. This Court was not inclined to grant bail to

the petitioner. At that stage, the counsel for the petitioner

sought permission to withdraw the bail application to move

it again. Accordingly, the present bail application is filed.

According to the petitioner, he is only the second accused

and the allegation is against the first accused. It is stated

that the first accused purchased the gold and transferred

the amount, which according to the prosecution was a 2025:KER:31698 BAIL APPL. NO.5340 OF 2025

bogus transaction. The petitioner was only sitting in the car

is the contention of the petitioner. I do not want to make

any observation about the same. Considering the facts and

circumstances of the case and also considering the period

of detention, I think, the petitioner can be released on bail

after imposing stringent conditions. There can be a

direction to the petitioner to appear before the

Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10:00am., till final

report is filed.

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.

9. Moreover, in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of 2025:KER:31698 BAIL APPL. NO.5340 OF 2025

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 2025:KER:31698 BAIL APPL. NO.5340 OF 2025

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 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 2025:KER:31698 BAIL APPL. NO.5340 OF 2025

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:

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 2025:KER:31698 BAIL APPL. NO.5340 OF 2025

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 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. 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.

2025:KER:31698 BAIL APPL. NO.5340 OF 2025

State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine KER

1260] is applicable in this case also.

6. Petitioner shall appear before the

Investigating Officer on all Mondays at

10:00am., till final report is filed.

7. 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