Kerala High Court
Faith.V vs State Of Kerala on 12 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
B.A.No.3251 of 2025
1
2025:KER:20870
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3251 OF 2025
CRIME NO.615/2024 OF KORATY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
FAITH.V.
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O. VIVEKANANDAN, VADAKKEKANDI HOUSE, VATTIPRAM
DESOM, MANGATTIDOM VILLAGE, KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 670001
BY ADVS.
M.SASINDRAN
SATHEESHAN ALAKKADAN
SIDHARTH P. SASI
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KORATTY POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680308
BY ADV.
SR PP - SRI.HRITHWIK.C.S
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.3251 of 2025
2
2025:KER:20870
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3251 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.615 of 2024
of Koratty Police Station. The above case is registered against
the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 406 &
420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was
working as Accountant in a firm namely, Hotel Clay House,
Muringoor and the defacto complainant, the Managing Partner of
the hotel directed the petitioner to receive the proceeds from the
hotel in cash and ATM, but against the above said direction, the
petitioner received money in his account by way of google pay and
instead of depositing the money in the account of the bank, he
appropriated an amount of Rs. 64,38,500/-. Hence it is alleged
2025:KER:20870
that the accused committed the above said offences. The
petitioner was arrested on 05.02.2025.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
allegation against the petitioner is not correct. The counsel
submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if
this Court grant him bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application and submitted that the allegation against the petitioner
is very serious.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The name of the petitioner is
'Faith'. The defacto complainant is the Managing Director of a
Hotel. According to the defacto complainant, the petitioner
misappropriated the funds and therefore, he has no faith in 'Faith'.
The above crime was registered on 14.06.2024. The petitioner
was arrested on 05.02.2025. Considering the period of detention,
I think the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing
2025:KER:20870
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 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
2025:KER:20870
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 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
2025:KER:20870
trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the
principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception"."
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 permission
of the jurisdictional Court.
2025:KER:20870
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
DM
