Kerala High Court

Shaman M K P vs State Of Kerala on 22 January, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                                             2025:KER:4835

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

    WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 2ND MAGHA, 1946

                      BAIL APPL. NO. 548 OF 2025

     CRIME NO.11/2025 OF Vazhakkad Police Station, Malappuram


PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

            SHAMAN M.K.P.,
            AGED 34 YEARS
            S/O. JAMAL, KHADEEJA MAZIL, EZHILOD P.O., KANNUR,
            PIN - 670 309

            BY ADV C.K.SREEJITH


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

            STATE OF KERALA,
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
            ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031

            SRI.NOUSHAD.K.A, SR PP


     THIS   BAIL   APPLICATION    HAVING   COME   UP   FOR    ADMISSION   ON
22.01.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..544/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                 2025:KER:4835
BAIL APPL. Nos. 548    & 544 OF 2025

                                       2

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

     WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 2ND MAGHA, 1946

                        BAIL APPL. NO. 544 OF 2025

     CRIME NO.1123/2024 OF Arthungal Police Station, Alappuzha

       AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.11248 OF

2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA


PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:

             SHAMAN M K P.,
             AGED 34 YEARS
             S/O. JAMAL, KHADEEJA MAZIL, EZHILOD P.O., KANNUR, PIN -
             670309


             BY ADV C.K.SREEJITH


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

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

             SRI.G.SUDHEER, PP


      THIS   BAIL     APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR    ADMISSION   ON
22.01.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..548/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                         2025:KER:4835
BAIL APPL. Nos. 548   & 544 OF 2025

                                      3


                  P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                  --------------------------------
               B.A.Nos.548 and 544 of 2025
                   -------------------------------
          Dated this the 22nd 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.

3. Petitioner in these cases are one and the

same. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.11/2025 of

Vazhakkad Police Station and Crime No.1123/2024 of

Arthungal Police Station. The above cases are registered

against the petitioner alleging offences punishable interalia

under Section 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)

and 66D of the Information Technology Act. Petitioner's arrest

was recorded in Crime No.1123/2024 of Arthungal Police 2025:KER:4835 BAIL APPL. Nos. 548 & 544 OF 2025

Station (B.A.No.544/2025) and Crime No.11/2025 of

Vazhakkad Police Station (B.A.No.548/2025) on 21.12.2024.

4. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner

committed online fraud and cheated the defacto complainant

in these cases.

5. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the

Public Prosecutor.

6. It is true that the allegations against the

petitioner are very serious. But, the petitioner is in custody

from 21.12.2024. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioner

may not be necessary. There can be a direction to release the

petitioner on bail after imposing stringent conditions. There

can be a further direction to the petitioner to surrender his

passport before the Jurisdictional Court, and if there is no

passport, the petitioner shall file an affidavit to that effect.

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 2025:KER:4835 BAIL APPL. Nos. 548 & 544 OF 2025

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 grant of bail in

accordance with the law. "Bail is the rule 2025:KER:4835 BAIL APPL. Nos. 548 & 544 OF 2025

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 2025:KER:4835 BAIL APPL. Nos. 548 & 544 OF 2025

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".

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 2025:KER:4835 BAIL APPL. Nos. 548 & 544 OF 2025

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.