Kerala High Court
Sayeed M.K vs State Of Kerala on 7 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:19473
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3221 OF 2025
CRIME NO.586/2024 OF ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.2122 OF 2025
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/S:
SAYEED M.K
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O USMAN HAJI, KURIPPALATH HOUSE, MADAKKAL, KASARAGOD,
PIN - 671311
BY ADVS.
V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH
RALPH RETI JOHN
VISHNU CHANDRAN
GIRIDHAR KRISHNA KUMAR
GEETHU T.A.
MARY GREESHMA
LIZ JOHNY
MANU NAIR G.
KRISHNAPRIYA SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
SR PP-SEETHA S
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.03.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..3217/2025, 3218/2025, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:19473
BAIL APPL. NOs.3221, 3218 & 3217 OF 2025
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3217 OF 2025
CRIME NO.23/2025 OF Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.1660 OF 2025
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/S:
SAYEED M.K
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O USMAN HAJI, KURIPPALATH HOUSE, MADAKKAL, KASARAGOD,
PIN - 671311
BY ADVS.
V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH
RALPH RETI JOHN
VISHNU CHANDRAN
GIRIDHAR KRISHNA KUMAR
GEETHU T.A.
MARY GREESHMA
LIZ JOHNY
MANU NAIR G.
KRISHNAPRIYA SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
SR PP- NOUSHAD K A
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.03.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..3221/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:19473
BAIL APPL. NOs.3221, 3218 & 3217 OF 2025
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3218 OF 2025
CRIME NO.587/2024 OF ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.2121 OF 2025
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/S:
SAYEED M.K
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O USMAN HAJI, KURIPPALATH HOUSE, MADAKKAL, KASARAGOD,
PIN - 671311
BY ADVS.
V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH
RALPH RETI JOHN
VISHNU CHANDRAN
GIRIDHAR KRISHNA KUMAR
GEETHU T.A.
MARY GREESHMA
LIZ JOHNY
MANU NAIR G.
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
SR PP- NOUSHAD K A
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.03.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..3221/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:19473
BAIL APPL. NOs.3221, 3218 & 3217 OF 2025
4
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.Nos.3221, 3218 & 3217 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 07th day of March, 2025
COMMONORDER
These Bail Applications are filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). These Bail
Applications are connected and therefore, I am disposing of
these cases by a common order.
2. Petitioner in these cases are one and the
same. The above cases are registered under Sections 316(2),
318(4) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
and also under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case in all these cases is
that, the petitioner who have 50% share in the ' Nice Sleep
Company' which owns a chain of hostel for men and women,
invited the defacto complainants in these cases for
investment. The defacto complainants invested huge amount
in the company. Thereafter, from 23.10.2024 onwards, the 1st
accused informed the investors that the company is suffering
2025:KER:19473
BAIL APPL. NOs.3221, 3218 & 3217 OF 2025
a loss and the invested amount will be returned after 1.5
years after settling the profit and loss. Thereafter, 1st accused
executed a Power of attorney in favour of the 2nd accused
misrepresenting that the authority to run the company is with
the 2nd accused. It is alleged that the accused persons
misappropriated the money received from the investors.
Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that,
the petitioner is in custody from 29.01.2025 onwards. The
counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any
conditions, if this Court grants him bail. The counsel
submitted that, there is no deliberate action on the part of the
petitioner and there was some financial crisis arising from the
regulatory issues and the investors were issued notices and
informed that they will protect the interest of the investors.
6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. Public Prosecutor submitted that huge amount
2025:KER:19473
BAIL APPL. NOs.3221, 3218 & 3217 OF 2025
was misappropriated by the petitioner.
7. Petitioner earlier filed a bail application
before this Court under Section 483 of the BNSS itself. At that
stage, this Court was not inclined to grant bail. Therefore, the
petitioner was allowed to withdraw the bail application with
liberty to move the bail application after two weeks.
Accordingly, the present bail application is filed. Now, the
petitioner is in custody from 29.01.2025 in connection with
Crime No.23/2025 of Kalamassery Police Station. The arrest of
the petitioner was recorded in Crime No.586/2024 of
Elamakkara Police Station on 02.02.2025 and in Crime
No.587/2024 of Elamakkara Police Station on 02-.02.2025.
Indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think,
the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent
conditions.
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
2025:KER:19473
BAIL APPL. NOs.3221, 3218 & 3217 OF 2025
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
2025:KER:19473
BAIL APPL. NOs.3221, 3218 & 3217 OF 2025
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 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
2025:KER:19473
BAIL APPL. NOs.3221, 3218 & 3217 OF 2025
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".
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:
2025:KER:19473
BAIL APPL. NOs.3221, 3218 & 3217 OF 2025
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
them 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
2025:KER:19473
BAIL APPL. NOs.3221, 3218 & 3217 OF 2025
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
SSG
