Kerala High Court
Aneesh V.R vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BA No.1682 of 2025
1
2025:KER:10994
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 22ND MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1682 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1481/2024 OF KALADY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2025 IN CMP
NO.139 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -
IV, PERUMBAVOOR
PETITIONER(S)/3RD ACCUSED:
ANEESH V.R
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O RAVINDRAN , VAKKEKATTIL
HOUSE , NEAR BHARATIYA BHAVAN SCHOOL ,
SRINGAPURAM,KODUNGALLUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680 664
BY ADVS.
P.P.BIJU
AMAL THOPPIL
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031
BY ADV.:
SRI.HRITHWIK C.S., SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BA No.1682 of 2025
2
2025:KER:10994
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
BA No.1682 of 2025
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
(BNSS), 2023.
2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime
No.1481/2024 of Kalady Police Station,
Ernakulam. The above case is registered against
the petitioner alleging offence punishable under
Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused
started an agency named 'U Can Abroad Agency',
which was run by the 1 st accused, promised the
2025:KER:10994
informant to give job visa to New Zealand and
Canada. Believing it, the informant transferred
huge amount to the accused. But the job visa is
not provided and the amount is also not returned.
Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed
the offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is in custody from 27.01.2025.
The counsel submitted that the allegation against
the petitioner is not correct. The counsel also
submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide
any condition imposed by this Court, if this Court
grants him bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that,
2025:KER:10994
serious allegations are there against the
petitioner and several victims are there in this
case.
7. This Court considered the contentions of
the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true
that the allegations against the petitioner is very
serious. But, the facts remains that the petitioner
is in custody from 27.01.2025. No purpose will be
served if the petitioner is detained in jail
indefinitely. In such circumstances, I think, the
petitioner can be released on bail after imposing
stringent conditions. There can be a direction to
the petitioner to appear before the Investigating
Officer on all Mondays at 10.00 AM, till final report
is filed. The petitioner is further directed to
surrender his passport before the jurisdictional
court and if there is no passport, the petitioner
2025:KER:10994
will file an affidavit to that effect.
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.
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
2025:KER:10994
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 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)
2025:KER:10994
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"."
Considering the dictum laid down in the
above decisions and considering the facts and
2025:KER:10994
circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is
allowed with the following conditions:
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
2025:KER:10994
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
suspected.
5. The petitioner shall appear before
the Investigating Officer on all
Mondays at 10.00 AM, till final
report is filed.
6. The petitioner shall surrender his
passport before the jurisdictional
2025:KER:10994
court and if there is no passport,
the petitioner will file an affidavit to
that effect.
7. If any of the above conditions are
violated by the petitioner, the
jurisdictional Court can cancel the
bail in accordance with law, even
though the bail is granted by this
Court. The prosecution is at liberty
to approach the jurisdictional court
to cancel the bail, if there is any
violation of the above condition.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
nvj JUDGE
