Kerala High Court
Kamal Singh vs State Of Kerala on 14 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
B.A.No.1846 of 2025
1
2025:KER:12370
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 25TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1846 OF 2025
CRIME NO.28/2024 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE,
KOZHIKODE
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN BAIL APPL. NO.667
OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.5:
KAMAL SINGH
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O GOKUL SINGH, 01.01, 218, RAMGADH, SUSNEER,
KHERENA, AGRA MALWA, MADHYA PRADESH, PIN - 465447
BY ADVS.
BALASUBRAMANYAN
PRIYANKA SUSAN RAJU
VAISAKH J.
MUHAMMED ASHIK K.A.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 673001
BY ADV.
SRI.G.SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.1846 of 2025
2
2025:KER:12370
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.1846 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.28 of 2024
of Cyber Crime Police Station, Kozhikode registered alleging
offences punishable under Sections 318(4) & 351(3) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Section 66D
of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and
the other accused have committed financial fraud and illegally
took away a sum of `4,08,80,457/- from the bank account of the
defacto complainant and his family. There are allegations against
the other accused also.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
2025:KER:12370
5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was arrested on 12.12.2024 and he is in custody for
more than 60 days. The counsel also submitted that the
petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him
bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the
investigation in the above case is not over. The petitioner is in
custody for more than 60 days. If that be the case, the petitioner
is entitled for statutory bail. Considering the facts and
circumstance of the case, I think 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 Enforcement
[2019 (16) SCALE 870], after considering all the earlier
judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail
2025:KER:12370
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
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
2025:KER:12370
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 directions:
1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a
2025:KER:12370
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 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
2025:KER:12370
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
DM
