Kerala High Court
Harikuttan K.R vs State Of Kerala on 29 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 851 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:6927
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. 851 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1781/2024 OF Vaikom Police Station, Kottayam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 10.01.2025 IN CMP
NO.216 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,VAIKOM
PETITIONER/S:
HARIKUTTAN K.R
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. MARIKUTTY, KAVUNKAL HOUSE, SAGAR JUNCTION,
KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, IDUKKI TALUK & DISTRICT, PIN -
685508
BY ADVS.
GEORGE MATHEW
SUNIL KUMAR A.G
MATHEW K.T.
GEORGE K.V.
BOBY MATHEW
STEPHY K REGI
ADITHYA BENZEER
MEDHA B.S.
JOHN ZACHARIAH DOMINIC
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BAIL APPL. NO. 851 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:6927
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VAIKOM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, THROUGH
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682031
3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
VAIKOM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, THROUGH
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682031
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 851 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:6927
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A. No. 851 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime
No.1781/2024 of Vaikom Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable
under Sections 420 and 370 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused for
the purpose of exploitation, induced the defacto complainant
and promised him to procure a Data Entry job at Cambodia
and thereafter, received via Google pay, Rs.20,000/- from the
defacto complainant under the guise of issuance of Visa. It is
also alleged that the accused caused the defacto complainant
to create fake ID in Facebook and induced the perosons who
gave friend requests to deposit funds in cryptocurrency
2025:KER:6927
besides committing cheating.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is in custody from 08.01.2025. The counsel
submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions,
if this Court grants him bail. The counsel also submitted that
the petitioner is also a victim in this case. The Public
Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, the Public
Prosecutor submitted that, as per the report received by him
from the investigating officer, no criminal antecedents is
alleged against the petitioner.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the
allegation against the petitioner is serious. But, the petitioner
is in custody from 08.01.2025. Considering the facts and
circumstances of this case and also considering the fact that
the petitioner has no criminal antecedents to the petitioner, I
think the petitioner can be released on bail, after imposing
2025:KER:6927
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 grant of bail in accordance with the
2025:KER:6927
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 forward open and shut cases, this
Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions
thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high
2025:KER:6927
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, 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
2025:KER:6927
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 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
