Kerala High Court
Varun Kumar Nair vs State Of Kerala on 29 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
B.A.No.799 of 2025
1
2025:KER:6834
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 9TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 799 OF 2025
CRIME NO.3910/2023 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 09.01.2025 IN CRMC
NO.3916 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,
ERNAKULAM ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP NO.10536
OF 2024 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
VARUN KUMAR NAIR,
AGED 37 YEARS
C/O.RAJALAKSHMI NAIR, SAROJ BHAVAN, OCHIRA P.O,
OCHIRA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690526
BY ADV P.V.DILEEP
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, NEAR KERALA
HIGH COURT, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 682031
BY ADV.SRI.NOUSHAD K.A., SENIOR PP
SRI.SAJI ISAAC K.J., DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.799 of 2025
2
2025:KER:6834
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.799 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.3910 of 2023
of Ernakulam Central Police Station registered alleging offences
punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused took a
personnel accident policy with an assured sum of `25 lakhs from
the defacto complainant company named Niva Bhupa Health
Insurance Company Limited. The accused, with an intention to
cheat the Insurance Company and make unlawful gain, took
cashless treatment worth `3,41,995/- at Valiyath Institute of
Medical Science Hospital. Thereafter, the accused obtained tax
invoice receipts for the medicines without paying any money
2025:KER:6834
and submitted a claim for `70 lakhs, and received `34,34,091/-
from the Insurance Company. Hence it is alleged that the
accused committed the above said offences. The petitioner was
arrested on 18.12.2024.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I also heard Adv.
Sri. Saji Isaac K.J., the learned counsel appearing for the
defacto complainant.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is in custody from 18.12.2024. The counsel
submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is not
correct. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready
to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail.
6. The counsel appearing for the defacto complainant
seriously opposed the bail application and submitted that it is a
clear case of cheating. The counsel also submitted that the
petitioner cheated some other insurance companies also. Huge
amount is collected from the Company with an intention to
cheat the Company. The counsel submitted that the petitioner
may not be released on bail at this stage.
2025:KER:6834
7. The Public Prosecutor also opposed the bail
application.
8. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Public Prosecutor. It is true that the
allegation against the petitioner is very serious. The petitioner
cheated the Insurance Company by producing false receipts.
But the fact remains that the petitioner is in custody from
18.12.2024. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not
necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. There
can be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the
Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 10 A.M., till
final report is filed. I also make it clear that, if the petitioner
commits similar offences in future, the Investigating Officer or
the defacto complainant can approach the jurisdictional court to
cancel the bail and if such an application is filed, the
jurisdictional court is free to pass appropriate orders, even
though this order is passed by this Court.
9. 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
2025:KER:6834
[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.
10. 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 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
2025:KER:6834
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)
11. 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 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"."
12. Considering the dictum laid down in the above
decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this
2025:KER:6834
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 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
2025:KER:6834
suspected, of the commission of which he is
suspected.
5. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 10 A.M.,
till final report is filed.
6. 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
