Bushara vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 12620 Ker

Kerala High Court

Bushara vs State Of Kerala on 30 December, 2025

                                                         2025:KER:98893

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
    TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 9TH POUSHA, 1947
                    BAIL APPL. NO. 14607 OF 2025
      CRIME NO.682/2025 OF MARADU POLICE STATION, Ernakulam
      AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.10.2025 IN CRMC NO.3020
OF 2025 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, ERNAKULAM

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 8:

            BUSHARA
            AGED 47 YEARS
            KUNNATHUPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, GURANAGARA ROAD,
            KACHERIPADY, PALLURUTHY,
            ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682018

            BY ADVS.
            SHRI.PRASANTH K.T.
            SHRI.MATHEW V.J.



RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

            STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031



OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI SANGEETH RAJ N R- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


     THIS   BAIL   APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
30.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A. No. 14607 of 2025             2

                                                        2025:KER:98893


                                   ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( for short 'BNSS').

2. The petitioner herein is the 8th accused in Crime No.682

of 2025 of Maradu Police Station registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 61(2), 310(2) and 311 of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Section

37(1) of the Arms Act.

3. The prosecution case is that, the accused no. 7, who

came to know that the first informant, a businessman, had money

with him, entered into a criminal conspiracy with the accused nos.

6 and 8 and, in pursuance of the said conspiracy, made the first

informant to believe that if money is deposited in a trading profit

fund in companies known to accused no. 7, he would get double

the amount through the bank. Thereafter, accused no. 7 sent

accused no. 6 to the first informant to ensure that the money was

indeed with the first informant. After ensuring that the first

informant was in possession of huge amount, on 29.09.2025, the

accused nos. 1 and 6 to 9 again conspired together to rob the said

money from the first informant. Accordingly, on 08.10.2025, at the B.A. No. 14607 of 2025 3

2025:KER:98893

instructions of the accused no. 7, the first informant was called to

Empire Plaza Hotel. The accused nos. 1, 2 and 6 also came to the

said hotel in a car arranged by the accused no. 9, a friend of the

accused no. 7 and they talked with the first informant, and

thereafter accused nos. 1, 2, 6 and the first informant together

came to the National Steel Company of the first informant. The

first informant then sent accused nos. 1 and 2 along with two of

his staff members to count Rs. 81/- lakh. While the money was

being counted, the accused nos. 3, 4, and 5, armed with sword

sticks and a gun, came to the office of the first informant,

threatened him by placing the sword stick on his chest, and

entered the room in which the money was kept by breaking the

glass. They then threatened the staff of the first informant by

showing the gun. After the staff members left the room, accused

nos. 3, 4 and 5 left the place with the bags containing Rs. 81/-

lakh. Accused nos. 1 and 2 also fled from the scene. Thereafter,

the accused nos. 2 and 3 went to the house of the accused no. 11,

and the accused no. 3 handed over the pistol and pellets used for

committing the offences to the accused no. 10, who concealed the

pistol and pellets in his wife's house. Subsequently, the accused

2025:KER:98893

nos. 3, 10 and 11 concealed a bag containing Rs. 19,94,500/- in

the house of Assi. Thereafter, the accused nos. 3, 10 and 11

parked the car used for committing the crime behind Valapad

Church and helped accused no. 3 to escape by taking him to the

railway station in a taxi. 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 that the

petitioner is totally innocent of the allegation levelled against her.

According to the petitioner, even if the case of the prosecution is

believed as such, there is no allegation that the 8 th accused took

part in the alleged robbery. Moreover, in the investigation so far

conducted, apart from some phone calls, no convincing materials

have been collected to show that the petitioner was also a party to

the conspiracy hatched in the case. The learned counsel for the

petitioner further urged that, as the investigation in the case has

progressed substantially, further judicial incarceration of the

petitioner would serve no purpose and some leniency has to be

shown in the matter of bail in the case of the petitioner,

2025:KER:98893

considering the fact that she is a lady and no specific overt acts

are attributed against her in the commission of the principle act,

which led to the registration of the present case.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application by highlighting the stake of the amount allegedly

robbed off. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that

sufficient materials are already collected to prove the complicity

of the petitioner in the conspiracy hatched in the case and hence

the petitioner deserves no leniency in the matter of bail.

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

2025:KER:98893

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 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. Keeping in mind the above principle while reverting to

the present case, it is gatherable that the accusation against the

petitioner is prima facie well founded. As evident from the records,

the prosecution is mainly relying on the frequent phone calls made

2025:KER:98893

between the petitioner and the 1st accused, the main perpetrator

of this offence to prove the complicity of the petitioner in this case.

Although the frequent phone call alone is not a reason to enter into

an automatic inference that the petitioner was also party to the

conspiracy hatched the same assumes some importance while

determining the question whether a conspiracy was hatched in this

case. Anyhow, the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged

conspiracy can be conclusively determined only after a full-fledged

trial, and the same can be relegated to that stage.

11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, the petitioner was arrested in this case on 09.10.2025,

and since then she has been under judicial custody. The

investigation in this case appears to have crossed its major and

crucial stage and is on the verge of completion. Although the major

portion of money is recovered, the remaining portion of the money

is yet to be recovered. However, I am at a loss to understand how

the retention of the petitioner in the judicial custody will facilitate

the recovery of the remaining amount which was allegedly robbed.

The petitioner has been under custody for the last 82 days. From

the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor, it is

2025:KER:98893

discernible that she was granted police custody and interrogated

thoroughly. Therefore, the retention of the petitioner in judicial

custody probably may not serve the recovery of the remaining

amount. Moreover, the presence and the cooperation of the

petitioner in the ongoing probe can be well ensured by imposing

stringent conditions in the bail order. Likewise, while considering

the present application, the fact that the accused no. 1, who is the

main perpetrator of the offence, is already granted bail also cannot

be overlooked. Hence, having regard to the duration of the

detention undergone by the petitioner and the present stage of the

investigation, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on the

following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall be released on bail on her

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 alternate Mondays between 10.00 a.m. and

12.00 p.m for three months or till final report is filed,

whichever occurs first.

2025:KER:98893

3. The petitioner shall surrender her passport within

seven days of her release from the jail. If she has no

passport, she shall file an affidavit to that effect.

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

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 any offence while on

bail.

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/-

JOBIN SEBASTIAN JUDGE mtk

2025:KER:98893

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 14607 OF 2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.682/2025 OF MARADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DATED 08.10.2025 Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRIL.M.C NO.3020/2025 OF THE HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT AT ERNAKUKLAM DATED 25.10.2025