Kerala High Court
Pramod.E.Varghese vs State Of Kerala on 11 April, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:31818
BAIL APPL. NO. 5199 OF 2025
1
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. 5199 OF 2025
CRIME NO.396/2025 OF Kattappana Police Station, Idukki
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl.
NO.3876 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
PRAMOD.E.VARGHESE
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.M.E.VARGHESE, THEKKEMURIYIL HOUSE,
MARARITHOTTAM, MALLAPPALLI EAST KARA, MALLAPPALL
VILLAGE. PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689584
BY ADVS. HARIKRISHNAN M.S.
SHAKTHI PRAKASH
K.DHRUV KUMAR
RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KATTAPANNA POLICE STATION, KATTAPANNA, IDUKKI,
PIN - 685508
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:31818
BAIL APPL. NO. 5199 OF 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A. No.5199 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for regular bail.
2. Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.396/2025 of
Kattappana Police Station. The offences alleged are under
Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner/1 st
accused, along with the 2nd accused, committed criminal
breach of trust and cheating by obtaining an amount of
Rs.2,80,00,000/- from the defacto complainant, offering job at
New Zealand, and thereafter did not arrange the job as agreed,
or return the amount collected from him. It is also alleged that
the accused provided fake visa and documents to the defacto
complainant and four others. Thus the petitioner is alleged to
2025:KER:31818
BAIL APPL. NO. 5199 OF 2025
have committed the aforesaid offence.
4. The petitioner was arrested on 06.03.2025 and
remanded to judicial custody. In the present petition, the
petitioner would contend that he is totally innocent, and that
he has been falsely implicated in this case.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
6. The bail application is strongly opposed by the
learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted by the learned
Public Prosecutor that, considering the huge amount involved
in the transaction, the release of the petitioner on bail at this
stage may not be in the interest of justice. Per contra, the
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, there is no
purpose to be fulfilled by the prolonged detention of the
petitioner in custody, and hence, he is entitled to be released
on bail.
7. As already stated above, the petitioner is in custody
since 06.03.2025. On a query by the Court, the learned Public
Prosecutor submitted that the custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is already over. There is also no contention for the
2025:KER:31818
BAIL APPL. NO. 5199 OF 2025
prosecution that the petitioner is having criminal antecedents
in connection with the involvement in similar offences. Since it
is seen that the petitioner has been in custody for more than 18
days, and that there is no purpose to be fulfilled by the
prolonged detention of the petitioner in custody, I deem it
appropriate to grant regular bail to the petitioner, subject to
strict conditions.
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 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
2025:KER:31818
BAIL APPL. NO. 5199 OF 2025
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
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
2025:KER:31818
BAIL APPL. NO. 5199 OF 2025
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"."
11. Considering the dictum laid down in the above
decisions, and considering the facts and circumstances of this
case, this Bail Application stands 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.
2025:KER:31818
BAIL APPL. NO. 5199 OF 2025
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 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 any offences of
similar nature, while on bail.
5. The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10
am, till the Final Report is filed.
6. The petitioner shall surrender his passport
before the Magistrate concerned within
seven days after his release from the
2025:KER:31818
BAIL APPL. NO. 5199 OF 2025
prison. If he has no passport, he shall file
an affidavit to that effect before the
learned Magistrate.
7. The petitioner will be entitled to move the
trial court for modification of conditions of
bail, if he actually deserves such
modification.
8. If any of the above conditions are violated
by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court
can cancel the bail in accordance with 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
JV JUDGE
