[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Arun vs State Of Kerala on 23 December, 2025
2025:KER:98788
BAIL APPL. NO. 14500 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 2ND POUSHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 14500 OF 2025
CRIME NO.841/2025 OF Kodakara Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.12.2025 IN Bail Appl. NO.13691 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER(S):
ARUN
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O RAVI, THUMBARATHI HOUSE, INJAMUDI DESOM,
MANAKULANGARA P O, KODAKARA, THRISSUR,
PIN - 682030
BY ADVS.
SRI.JITHIN BABU A
SHRI.ARUN SAMUEL
SHRI.ANOOD JALAL K.J.
SMT.DONA MATHEW
RESPONDENT(S):
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
PP ADV. M.P PRASANTH (PP)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:98788
BAIL APPL. NO. 14500 OF 2025
2
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ( for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner herein is the 1 st accused in Crime No.841/2025 of
Kodakara Police Station, Thrissur, registered for the offence punishable
under Section 112 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').
3. The prosecution case is that, the accused being the member
of cash deception agency, fraudulently swindled an amount of
Rs.11,00,995/- from the defacto complainant. 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
accused No.2 involved in the above crime was already granted bail by
the IInd Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur, as per Annexure-3 order
dated 25.11.2025 in Crl.M.C No.2064 of 2025. The petitioner is ready to
cooperate with the investigation.
2025:KER:98788
BAIL APPL. NO. 14500 OF 2025
6. The learned Public Prosecutor who opposed the bail
application submitted that, if this Court inclines to grant bail to the
petitioner, strict conditions may be incorporated in the bail order.
7. It is a well accepted principle that bail is the rule and 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 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
2025:KER:98788
BAIL APPL. NO. 14500 OF 2025
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], 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"."
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:
2025:KER:98788
BAIL APPL. NO. 14500 OF 2025
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 appear before the investigating officer
for interrogation as and when he is required to do so in
writing, apart from the days mentioned above, till the
completion of the investigation.
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 the investigating officer.
5. The petitioner shall not leave India without permission of
the jurisdictional Court.
2025:KER:98788
BAIL APPL. NO. 14500 OF 2025
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 is at liberty to
approach the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail in
accordance with law.
SD/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S.,
JUDGE
JJ
2025:KER:98788
BAIL APPL. NO. 14500 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 14500 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 841/2025
OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR.
Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07/11/2025 IN
CRL.MP NO. 10691/2025 BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST-
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKUDA.
Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/11/2025 IN
CRL.MC NO. 2064/2025 BY III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR.
Annexure 4 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS PERTAINING
TO THE PETITIONER'S WIFE.
