Kerala High Court

Binil Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 21 February, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                                       2025:KER:14899
Bail Appl. Nos.2314 & 2317 OF 2025

                                1


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1946

                  BAIL APPL. NO. 2314 OF 2025

CRIME NO.1021/2024 OF Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam

PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED:

          BINILKUMAR
          AGED 40 YEARS
          S/O GOPINATHAN, ATTAYATHU HOUSE,
          KURUPPAMPADY KARA,RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,KERALA, PIN - 683545

          BY ADVS.
          VISHAK.K.JOHNSON
          PARVATHY S.
          MARILIN ROMEO


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

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

          SRI G SUDHEER, PP


THIS   BAIL   APPLICATION   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR    ADMISSION   ON
21.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2317/2025, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                               2025:KER:14899
Bail Appl. Nos.2314 & 2317 OF 2025

                               2



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1946

                BAIL APPL. NO. 2317 OF 2025

CRIME NO.303/2024 OF Hill Palace Police Station, Ernakulam

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

         BINIL KUMAR
         AGED 40 YEARS
         S/O GOPINATHAN,ATTAYATHU HOUSE,
         KURUPPAMPADY KARA,RAYANANGALAM VILLAGE,
         ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,KERALA, PIN - 683545

         BY ADVS.
         VISHAK.K.JOHNSON
         PARVATHY S.
         MARILIN ROMEO



RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

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

         SRI NOUSHAD KA, SR PP


     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2314/2025, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                            2025:KER:14899
Bail Appl. Nos.2314 & 2317 OF 2025

                                    3




                  P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                   --------------------------------
               B.A. Nos.2314 & 2317 of 2025
            ----------------------------------------------
         Dated this the 21th day of February, 2025

                                  ORDER

These Bail Applications filed under Section 483 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita are connected, and

therefore I am disposing these bail applications by a common

order as the petitioner in these cases is one and the same.

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime

No.1021/2024 of Kalamassery Police Station which is registered

for offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 3(5)

of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Crime No.303/2024 of Hill

Palace Police Station, which is registered for offences

punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner's arrest was recorded in

Crime No.1021/2024 of Kalamassery Police Station on

29.01.2025 and on 31.01.2025 in Crime No.303/2024 of

Kalamassery Police Station.

3. The prosecution case is that, the accused 2025:KER:14899 Bail Appl. Nos.2314 & 2317 OF 2025

collected huge amount from the defacto complainant in these

cases, offering job at abroad; but the job is not provided and the

amount is also misappropriated. It is also alleged that the

accused forged visa and handed over to the defacto

complainant.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the

Public Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner is in custody from 25.01.2025 in another case.

The counsel submitted that the allegation against the petitioner

is not correct. The petitioner is ready to abide by any

conditions, if this Court grant him bail. The Public Prosecutor

opposed the bail application and submitted that there are eight

other cases also registered against the petitioner with same set

of allegations.

6. This Court considered the contention of the

petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the

allegation against the petitioner is serious. The petitioner is in

custody from 25.01.2025 onwards. Indefinite incarceration of

the petitioner is not necessary. The petitioner can be released 2025:KER:14899 Bail Appl. Nos.2314 & 2317 OF 2025

on bail after imposing stringent conditions.

7. 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.

8. 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 2025:KER:14899 Bail Appl. Nos.2314 & 2317 OF 2025

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)

9. 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 2025:KER:14899 Bail Appl. Nos.2314 & 2317 OF 2025

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"."

10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above

decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this

case, these Bail Applications are 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.