Kerala High Court
Ajin G George vs State Of Kerala on 16 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:3228
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025/26TH POUSHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 508 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1077/2024 OF PUTHENCRUZ POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
AJIN G GEORGE
AGED 30 YEARS, S/O GEORGE,
KIZHAKKE THEVARKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGAM
PO, KADAPPRA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN -
689 621.
BY ADVS.
P.B.MUHAMMED AJEESH
RAIEEZ M ASHRAF
SANDEEP V.G.
ATHIRA UTHAMAN
RESPONDENT/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
BY ADV
NOUSHAD K.A., SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.01.2025, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL.No.524/2025, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:3228
B.A Nos.508 and 524 of 2025
:2:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025/26TH POUSHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 524 OF 2025
CRIME NO.532/2024 OF INFOPARK POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER:
AJIN G GEORGE
AGED 30 YEARS, S/O GEORGE, KIZHAKKE
THEVARKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGAM PO,
KADAPPRA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN - 689 621.
BY ADVS.
P.B.MUHAMMED AJEESH
RAIEEZ M ASHRAF
SANDEEP V.G.
ATHIRA UTHAMAN
RESPONDENT/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
BY ADV
G.SUDHEER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.01.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..508/2025, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:3228
B.A Nos.508 and 524 of 2025
:3:
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.Nos.508 & 524 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2025
COMMON ORDER
These Bail Applications are filed under Section
483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. These bail applications are connected
and therefore, I am disposing of these bail applications by
a common order. The petitioners in these bail
applications is one and the same. He is involved in Crime
No. 1077/2024 of Puthencruz Police Station and Crime
No. 532/2024 of Infopark police Station. The above cases
are registered against the petitioner interalia under
Sections 406 & 420 IPC.
3. The common case in all these cases is
that the petitioner collected huge amount from the
defacto complainant offering UK VISA and after collecting
2025:KER:3228
B.A Nos.508 and 524 of 2025
the amount, the VISA is not arranged. The petitioner is in
custody from 04.11.2024. The petitioner was formally
arrested in these case on 28.12.2024.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner has not committed any offence and
the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this
Court grants him bail.
6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that similar
allegations are there against the petitioner.
7. This Court considered the contentions of
the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the
allegation against the petitioner is very serious. But, the
petitioner is in custody from 04.11.2024. The petitioner
was formally arrested in these case on 28.12.2024. The
indefinite incarceration of the petitioner may not be
2025:KER:3228
B.A Nos.508 and 524 of 2025
necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case.
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
2025:KER:3228
B.A Nos.508 and 524 of 2025
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
2025:KER:3228
B.A Nos.508 and 524 of 2025
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
2025:KER:3228
B.A Nos.508 and 524 of 2025
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
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
2025:KER:3228
B.A Nos.508 and 524 of 2025
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
2025:KER:3228
B.A Nos.508 and 524 of 2025
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
AMR
