Kerala High Court
Rajesh vs State Of Kerala on 7 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. Nos.1686, 1688, 1691,1694,
1696 OF 2025
2025:KER:10102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 18TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1686 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1178/2024 OF Valappad Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMP NO.558 OF 2025
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KODUNGALLUR
PETITIONER/S:
RAJESH
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. GOPI, VALATHARA HOUSE, METHALA COIR SOCIETY,
METHALA VILLAGE, PIN - 680664
BY ADVS.
AMRIN FATHIMA
J.RAMKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAPAD POLICE STATION, VALAPAD,
PIN - 680567
SRI.G.SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1688/2025, 1689/2025 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. Nos.1686, 1688, 1691,1694,
1696 OF 2025
2025:KER:10102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 18TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1688 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1036/2024 OF KAIPAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR,
Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMP NO.233 OF 2024
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KODUNGALLUR ARISING OUT
OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMP NO.464 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KODUNGALLUR
PETITIONER/S:
RAJESH
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O GOPI, VALATHARA HOUSE, NEAR METHALA COIR SOCIETY
DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE, PIN - 680664
BY ADVS.
AMRIN FATHIMA
J.RAMKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KAIPAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680681
SRI.G.SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1686/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. Nos.1686, 1688, 1691,1694,
1696 OF 2025
2025:KER:10102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 18TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1689 OF 2025
CRIME NO.970/2024 OF KAIPAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR,
Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMP NO.231 OF 2025
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KODUNGALLUR ARISING OUT
OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMP NO.463 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KODUNGALLUR
PETITIONER/S:
RAJESH
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. GOPI, VALTHARA HOUSE, NEAR METHALA COIR SOCIETY
DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE, PIN - 680664
BY ADVS.
AMRIN FATHIMA
J.RAMKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KAIPAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680681
SRI.G.SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1686/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. Nos.1686, 1688, 1691,1694,
1696 OF 2025
2025:KER:10102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 18TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1691 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1177/2024 OF Valappad Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMP NO.554 OF 2025
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KODUNGALLUR
PETITIONER/S:
RAJESH
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. GOPI, VALATHARA HOUSE, NEAR METHALA COIR SOCIETY
DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE, PIN - 680664
BY ADVS.
AMRIN FATHIMA
J.RAMKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE
VALAPAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680567
SRI.HRITHWIK CS, SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1686/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. Nos.1686, 1688, 1691,1694,
1696 OF 2025
2025:KER:10102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 18TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1694 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1179/2024 OF Valappad Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMP NO.556 OF 2025
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KODUNGALLUR
PETITIONER/S:
RAJESH
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. GOPI, VALATHARA HOUSE, METHALA COIR SOCIETY,
METHALA VILLAGE, PIN - 680664
BY ADVS.
AMRIN FATHIMA
J.RAMKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE
VALAPAD POLICE STATION THRISSUR, PIN - 680567
SRI.G.SUDHEER PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1686/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. Nos.1686, 1688, 1691,1694,
1696 OF 2025
2025:KER:10102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 18TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1696 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1035/2024 OF KAIPAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR,
Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMP NO.340 OF 2025
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KODUNGALLUR ARISING OUT
OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMP NO.460 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KODUNGALLUR
PETITIONER/S:
RAJESH
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. GOPI, VALATHARA HOUSE, NEAR METHALA COIR SOCIETY
DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE, PIN - 680664
BY ADVS.
AMRIN FATHIMA
J.RAMKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KAIPAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680681
G.SUDHEER PP.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1686/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. Nos.1686, 1688, 1691,1694,
1696 OF 2025
2025:KER:10102
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
Bail Appl. Nos.1686/2025, 1688/2025, 1689/2025,
1691/2025, 1694/2025, 1696/2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of February, 2025
ORDER
These Bail Applications are filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and are connected cases.
Therefore, I am disposing of these bail applications by a
common order.
2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime Nos.
970/2024, 1035/2024, 1036/2024 of Kaipamangalam Police
Station and Crime Nos.1177/2024, 1178/2024 and 1179/2024 of
Valappad Police Station. The above cases are registered against
the petitioners interalia under Secs. 316 (2), 308(4) r/w 3(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').
3. The common case in all these cases is that the
accused produced fake gold before the different financial
BAIL APPL. Nos.1686, 1688, 1691,1694,
1696 OF 2025
2025:KER:10102
institutions and obtained huge amount as loan. Hence, it is
alleged that the accused committed the offences.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is in custody from 11.11.2025. The counsel
submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if
this Court grants him bail. It is also submitted that the
petitioner has not committed any offences. The gold ornaments
are collected by the financial institutions by verifying same by
the appraisers. Therefore, the petitioner is not guilty. The
Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The
Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in 14
cases in which the allegation is the same.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the
allegation against the petitioner are very serious. But, the
petitioner is in custody from 11.01.2025. The maximum
punishment that can be imposed for the offence alleged is upto
BAIL APPL. Nos.1686, 1688, 1691,1694,
1696 OF 2025
2025:KER:10102
seven years. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and
another [(2014) 8 SCC 273] the Apex Court observed like
this :
"7.1. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is
evident that a person accused of an offence punishable
with imprisonment for a term which may be less than
seven years or which may extend to seven years with or
without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only
on his satisfaction that such person had committed the
offence punishable as aforesaid. A police officer before
arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such
arrest is necessary to prevent such person from
committing any further offence; or for proper
investigation of the case: or to prevent the accused from
causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or
tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to
prevent such person from making any inducement, threat
or promise to a Witness so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the court or the police officer; or
unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in
the court whenever required cannot be ensured. These
are the conclusions, which one may reach based on facts.
7.2. The law mandates the police officer to state the
facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to
come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions
aforesaid. while making such arrest. The law further
requires the police officers to record the reasons in
writing for not making the arrest.
BAIL APPL. Nos.1686, 1688, 1691,1694,
1696 OF 2025
2025:KER:10102
7.3. In pith and core, the police officer before arrest
must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really
required? What purpose it will serve? What object it will
achieve? It is only after these questions are addressed
and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is
satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. In
fine, before arrest first the police officers should have
reason to believe on the basis of information and material
that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from
this, the police officer has to be satisfied further that the
arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes
envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section
41 CrPC."
7. Keeping in mind the above principle laid down
by the Apex Court, I am of the considered opinion that the
continued custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be
necessary. There can be a direction to the petitioner to appear
before the investigating officer on all Mondays in between 10
am and 12 noon, till final report is filed. The petitioner can be
released on bail, after imposing stringent 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
BAIL APPL. Nos.1686, 1688, 1691,1694,
1696 OF 2025
2025:KER:10102
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 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
BAIL APPL. Nos.1686, 1688, 1691,1694,
1696 OF 2025
2025:KER:10102
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 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
decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this
case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following
BAIL APPL. Nos.1686, 1688, 1691,1694,
1696 OF 2025
2025:KER:10102
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.
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 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 an offence
similar to the offence of which he is accused, or
suspected, of the commission of which he is
BAIL APPL. Nos.1686, 1688, 1691,1694,
1696 OF 2025
2025:KER:10102
suspected.
5. The petitioner shall appear before the
investigating officer on all Mondays in between
10 am and 12 noon, till final report is filed.
6. If any of the above conditions are violated
by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can
cancel the bail in accordance to 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
JUDGE
SKS
