Kerala High Court
Md Harijul Islam vs State Of Kerala on 22 April, 2025
2025:KER:32831
B.A.No. 5399 of 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 2ND VAISAKHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 5399 OF 2025
CRIME NO.510/2025 OF Perumbavoor Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:
MD HARIJUL ISLAM
AGED 26 YEARS, S/O MD SOFIQUL ISLAM, JURIYA,
NAGOAN, ASSAM, PIN - 782 001.
BY ADV MANSOOR ALI
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
OTHER PRESENT:
Adv.Renjith George, Sr. P.P.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:32831
B.A.No. 5399 of 2025
2
ORDER
Dated this the 22nd day of April, 2025
This Bail Application is filed under S.483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime
No.510/2025 of Perumbavoor Police Station registered for the
offence punishable under Section 336(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').
3. The prosecution case is that, the accused created forged
Aadhaar cards from his shop situated at Perumbavoor. Thus, the
accused allegedly committed the above offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was arrested on 10/03/2025 and since then he has been
in judicial custody. He is ready to abide all the conditions that
would be imposed by this Court.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is a person
hailing from Assam and if he is released on bail there is every
2025:KER:32831
possibility of his absconding to his native place.
7. 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 [(2020) 13
SCC 791] 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.
8. Moreover, in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India [2024
KHC 6431], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:
"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
2025:KER:32831
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."
9. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement
[2024 KHC 6426] also the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:
"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
2025:KER:32831
Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and
jail is exception"."
10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decisions
and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail
Application is allowed with the following directions:
1. The 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 on every Monday between 10.00 am and
11.00 am till the final report is filed or for a period
of three months from the date of his release on bail,
whichever event occurs first.
3. The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala till
the completion of investigation without obtaining
prior permission of the jurisdictional Court. He shall
furnish his present address before the jurisdictional
Court at the time of execution of the bail bond.
2025:KER:32831
4. 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.
5. The petitioner shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
6. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to
the offence of which he is accused.
7. It is made clear that if any of the above conditions
are violated by the petitioner, the prosecution and
the victim are at liberty to approach the
jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
Muralee Krishna S.
Judge
vpv
