Kerala High Court
Rahul Morya vs State Of Kerala on 20 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 1808 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:14483
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1808 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1394/2024 OF Harippad Police Station, Alappuzha
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.01.2025 IN CRMC NO.30
OF 2025 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/S:
1 RAHUL MORYA
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O SURESH MORYA HOUSE NO - 83, MANGLA VIHAR-1 NEW
PAC LINES, KANPUR, KANPUR NAGAR UTTAR PRADESH, PIN -
208015
2 DHARMENDRA SAHU
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O RAJKAPUR SAHU, 2657 DEVTAL ROAD, GARHA, NEAR
RAMAYAN MANDIR, GHANA JABALPUR, MADYA PRADESH, PIN -
482003
BY ADVS.
MUHAMMED ZAIN SHABEER P.P.
A.MUJEEB REHUMAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BAIL APPL. NO. 1808 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:14483
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
HARIPPAD POLICE STATION , HARIPPAD ,, PIN - 690514
SRI.NOUSHAD KA, SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 1808 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:14483
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A. No. 1808 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.
1394/2024 of Harippad Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable
under Sections 331(3), 334(1), 305(a) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'). The petitioners are
arrested on 23.12.2024.
3. The prosecution case is that on 19.12.2024 at
about 12.45 pm, both the accused wearing helmets, unlawfully
trespassed into an ATM premises. They allegedly operated the
ATM keypad to withdraw a sum of Rs.10,000/- and
subsequently, forcefully dismantled the front panel of the ATM
2025:KER:14483
screen. By these actions, the accused said to have committed
the offences.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners raised different
contentions. At last, he concluded his arguments stating that
the petitioners are entitled statutory bail because they were
arrested on 22.12.2024 and no final report is filed even now.
Admittedly, the petitioners are in custody for 61 days. The
Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, the Public
Prosecutor submitted that the final report is not filed in the
above case. If the final report is not filed within 60 days, the
petitioners are entitled to statutory bail. The Pubic Prosecutor
also submitted that the petitioners are having criminal
antecedents. That is not a reason to reject a statutory bail
application. In such circumstances, without much discussion,
the petitioners can be released on bail, after imposing
stringent conditions.
2025:KER:14483
6. 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.
7. 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
2025:KER:14483
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)
8. 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
2025:KER:14483
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"."
9. 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. Petitioners 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 petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer for interrogation as and
when required. The petitioners 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
2025:KER:14483
of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing
such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
3. Petitioners shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
4. Petitioners shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which they are accused,
or suspected, of the commission of which they are
suspected.
5. If any of the above conditions are violated
by the petitioners, 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
