Kerala High Court

Mujeebu Rahiman vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

BAIL APPL. NO. 4004 OF 2025                 1



                                                   2025:KER:25927
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                       PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

  WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947

                         BAIL APPL. NO. 4004 OF 2025

    CRIME NO.877/2024 OF Narakkal Police Station, Ernakulam

PETITIONER/S:

              .MUJEEBU RAHIMAN
              AGED 45 YEARS
              S/O KUNHALAVIKUTTY VAIDYAR , VAYDIAR (H) ,
              KOTTUMALA , MELMURI P.O , MALAPPURAM DT.,KERALA,
              PIN - 676517


              BY ADV V.HARIKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/S:
    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
          KERALA, PIN - 682031
    2     STATION HOUSE OFFICER
          NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN
          - 682505
OTHER PRESENT:
          PP- G SUDHEER


       THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.03.2025,        THE        COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 4004 OF 2025              2



                                                        2025:KER:25927

                   P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                 --------------------------------------
                     B.A. No. 4004 of 2025
                 --------------------------------------
             Dated this the 26th day of March, 2025



                                ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime

No.877/2024 of Narakkal Police Station, Ernakulam. The

above case is registered against the petitioner alleging

offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal

Code (IPC).

3. The prosecution case is that, the accused

persons with intention to deceive the defacto complainant,

the accused persons through a matrimonial site requested

marriage by contacting defacto complainant by name

2025:KER:25927 'Sruthi' through a Whats-app Number. They made him to

download an app by name "KUCOIN" and also sent link and

made him to download "DEUNCOIN" App. It is alleged that,

the accused persons, for the purpose of crypto currency

trading, obtained a total sum of Rs.32,93,306/- from defacto

complainant through various accounts of the accused

persons and the accused persons withdrew the amount. It is

also alleged that an amount of Rs.4,69,700/- was credited to

the account of the petitioner on two occasions.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the

Public Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner surrendered before the investigating

officer as ordered by this Court in Annexure-A1 on

10.03.2025. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is

ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him

bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

2025:KER:25927 The Public Prosecutor submitted that there is one more

case registered against the petitioner under Sec.395

IPC.

6. This Court considered the contentions of

the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The petitioner

earlier filed a bail application under Sec. 482 BNSS and

this Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to

the petitioner. At that stage, the counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to

surrender before the investigating officer. Accordingly,

this Court passed Annexure-A1 order directing the

petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer.

Accordingly, the petitioner surrendered on 10.03.2025.

The allegation against the petitioner is that an amount

of Rs.4,69,700/- was credited to the account of the

petitioner on two occasions. Considering the facts and

circumstances of this case, I think the petitioner can be

2025:KER:25927 released on bail, after imposing stringent conditions.

There can be a direction to appear before the

investigating officer on all Mondays at 10.00 am, till

final report is filed.

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

2025:KER:25927 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 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

2025:KER:25927 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"."

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

2025:KER:25927 Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand

only) with two solvent sureties each for

the like sum to the satisfaction of the

jurisdictional Court.