[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sanjoy Sardar vs State Of Kerala on 23 December, 2025
2025:KER:98771
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. 14511 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1564/2025 OF Sakthikulangara Police Station, Kollam
PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:
SANJOY SARDAR
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O SHANKAR SARDAR SANKIJAHAN,
GOPALGANJ HANT SOUTH 24 PARGANAS WEST BENGAL,
PIN - 743338
BY ADV SHRI.SHYAM KUMAR M.P
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
PP M.C ASHI
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
B.A.No.14511/2025
2025:KER:98771
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ( for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner herein is the 3rd accused in Crime
No.1564/2025 of Sakthikulangara Police Station, Kollam
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 336(2),
337(1), 339, 340(2) r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'), Section 21 of Immigration
and Foreigners Act, 2005 and Section 66(c) of Information
Technology Act, 2000.
3. The prosecution case is that, accused No.1 is a
national of Bangladesh. The petitioner herein allegedly
helped accused No.1 to forge a false Aadhaar card and also
acccomodated him along with him. He further facilitated the
transfer of money earned by accused No.1 to Bangladesh.
Accused No.1 was residing here using the forged and fake
Aadhaar card. Thus, the accused allegedly committed the
above offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
2025:KER:98771
that accused No.2 was already granted bail as per order
dated 08.12.2025 in Bail Application No.14356/2025. The
petitioner is also standing in the very same footing as that of
accused No.2 and hence further detention of the petitioner in
judicial custody is unnecessary.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
allegation against the petitioner is more grave than that of
accused No.2.
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
2025:KER:98771
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 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
2025:KER:98771
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
decision and also considering the fact that the 2nd accused
has already granted bail by this Court, I am inclined to allow
this bail application 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 appear before the
investigating officer for interrogation as and when
2025:KER:98771
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.
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
SLR
2025:KER:98771
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 14511 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO
1564/2025 DATED 17/10/2025
Annexure-2 THE TRUE COPY OF AADHAR CARD BEARING
NUMBER 3788 1007 9118
Annexure-3 THE TRUE COPY OF HIS BIRTH
CIRTIFICATE DATED 4/7/2003
Annexure-4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
