Mohammed Ansal C.A vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 4072 Ker

Kerala High Court

Mohammed Ansal C.A vs State Of Kerala on 14 February, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

B.A.No.1881 of 2025
                                     1


                                                             2025:KER:12376

              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. 1881 OF 2025
 CRIME NO.2114/2024 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.02.2025 IN CRMP
NO.39    OF    2025    OF   ADDITIONAL   DISTRICT    &    SESSIONS    COURT
(POCSO), MUVATTUPUZHA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.3:

              MOHAMMED ANSAL C.A
              AGED 25 YEARS
              S/O PATHUMMA, CHERACKAKUDY HOUSE, ALLAPRA P.O.,
              ASHARIMUGHAL, VENGOLA VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR,
              ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683556


              BY ADVS.
              P.P.BIJU
              AMAL THOPPIL
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

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

              BY ADV.
              SRI.HRITHWIK C.S., SENIOR 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.1881 of 2025
                                     2


                                                          2025:KER:12376



                  P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                --------------------------------
                     B.A.No.1881 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 the sole accused in Crime No.2114

of 2024 of Perumbavoor Police Station. The above case is

registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable

under Sections 75(1)(i), 75(1)(ii), 78(1)(i) & 308(2) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Sections 7, 8,

12, 11(i) and 11(iv) of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act (for short 'POCSO Act').

3. The prosecution case is that, the accused with an

intention to sexually abuse the victim, who is under the age of 16,

made close acquaintance with her and also the accused demanded

naked photos by following through the social media. The accused

2025:KER:12376

also threatened the victim and obtained money from the victim. It

is also alleged that one day, the accused hugged the victim and

kissed on her forehead. Hence, it is alleged that the accused

committed the offences.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The petitioner earlier filed B.A. No.616/2025

under Section 482 of the BNSS. This Court was not inclined to

grant anticipatory bail. At that stage, the counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the petitioner is ready to surrender before the

Investigating Officer. Accordingly, this Court passed Annexure-2

order. Based on the same, the petitioner surrendered and he is

now remanded to judicial custody on 05.02.2025. The counsel

appearing for the petitioner 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. It is true that the

2025:KER:12376

allegation against the petitioner is serious. But the petitioner is in

custody from 05.02.2025. Considering the facts and circumstance

of the case and also considering the period of detention, 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

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

2025:KER:12376

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)

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

2025:KER:12376

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

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

2025:KER:12376

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

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