Kerala High Court
Jayaprakash.D.V vs State Of Kerala on 29 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
B.A.No.798 of 2025
1
2025:KER:6907
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. 798 OF 2025
CRIME NO.2363/2024 OF ALUVA EAST POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 09.01.2025 IN CRMC
NO.10 OF 2025 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
JAYAPRAKASH.D.V
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O NARAYANAN, SOORYAPRABHA HOUSE, MUNDUPARAMBU
KARA, MALAPPURAM VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676509
BY ADV P.M.RAFIQ
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SRI. NOUSHAD K.A., SENIOR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.798 of 2025
2
2025:KER:6907
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.798 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.2363 of
2024 of Aluva East Police Station registered alleging offences
punishable under Sections 75(1)(ii), 75(1)(iv) and 77 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').
3. The prosecution case is that, on 24.12.2024, at
about 9:00 p.m., while the first informant was in her bedroom,
the accused recorded her nudity on his mobile phone.
Thereafter, on 26.12.2024, at 11:00 a.m., the accused
informed the first informant that he had recorded her nudity
on his mobile phone and assured her that he would not show it
to others, but demanded sexual favours from her. Hence it is
alleged that the accused committed the above said offences.
2025:KER:6907
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is in custody from 27.12.2024. The counsel also
submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if
this Court grant him bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application.
7. 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. But, the
petitioner is in custody from 27.12.2024. Considering the facts
and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner can be
released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. There can
be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the
Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10 A.M., till final report
is filed.
8. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the
bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble
2025:KER:6907
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 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
2025:KER:6907
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)
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 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"."
2025:KER:6907
11. 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
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer.
3. Petitioner shall not leave India without
2025:KER:6907
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. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Officer on all Mondays 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
