Kerala High Court
Vinodkumar M G vs State Of Kerala on 7 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:10032
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. 1614 OF 2025
CRIME NO.378/2024 OF ALOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
VINODKUMAR M G
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. GANGADHARAN, MANAKKADAN
HOUSE,
NEAR EDATHAADAN SCHOOL, KANALPALAM, ALOOR
CHALAKUDY, PIN - 680 683.
BY ADVS.
FOUSIYA RAYINMAKI
D.M.NOWFAL
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
BY ADV
G.SUDHEER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:10032
B.A No.1614 of 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.1614 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime
No.378 of 2024 of Aloor Police Station, Thrissur. The
above case is registered against the petitioner and
others alleging offences punishable under Section 420
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short
'IPC'), 1860.
3. The prosecution case is that the
petitioner along with two other accused in furtherance of
their common intention, promised the 1 st informant to
appoint as Assistant Manger in any one of the branches of
Kerala Bank at Thrissur District and an amount of
2025:KER:10032
Rs.26 lakhs is obtained from her father. The job is not
provided and the amount is not returned.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the allegation against the petitioner is not correct.
He is not involved in this case. It is also submitted that
the petitioner is in custody from 23.12.2024.
6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the
petitioner is involved in four other cases. Three case with
similar allegations and one case is registered because the
petitioner assaulted the husband of the defacto
complainant.
7. This Court considered the contention of
the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the
allegation against the petitioner is very serious. But, the
petitioner is in custody from 23.12.2024. Indefinite
2025:KER:10032
incarceration of the petitioner may not be necessary. But,
I make it clear that if the petitioner is involved in similar
offence in future, the Investigating Officer is free to file
appropriate application before the Jurisdictional Court to
cancel the bail, and if such an application is filed the
Jurisdictional Court can pass appropriate orders, even
though this bail order is passed by this Court. With that
condition bail can be granted.
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 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.
2025:KER:10032
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
2025:KER:10032
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."
(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
2025:KER:10032
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".
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 directions:
2025:KER:10032
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 her from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to
any police officer.
3. Petitioner shall not leave India
without permission of the jurisdictional
2025:KER:10032
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 suspected.
5. 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
AMR
