Kerala High Court
Abubacker Sidhik vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 4026 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:25778
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. 4026 OF 2025
CRIME NO.250/2025 OF Vadakkancherry Police Station,
Palakkad
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2025
IN CRMP NO.1386 OF 2025 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
COURT & I ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL,PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/S:
ABUBACKER SIDHIK
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O. CHANFASHA@SHANBASHA,
KALLAMPARAMBU, THACHANADI, PUTHUCODE
P.O, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
678687
BY ADV A.R.DILEEP
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
BAIL APPL. NO. 4026 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:25778
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
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. 4026 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:25778
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A. No.4026 of 2024
--------------------------------------
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.
250/2025 of Vadakkancherry Police Station. The above
case is registered against the petitioner alleging
offences punishable under Sections 67 and 67B of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short 'IT Act')
and also under Secs. 11(iv) & 12 of the Protection of
2025:KER:25778
Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
3. The prosecution case is that, for the
period from 20.10.2023 till 22.02.2025, the accused
secured the nude photographs of the survivor through
her Instagram account and he circulated the said
photographs through mobile phones and thus the
petitioner committed the offences. The petitioner was
arrested on 23.02.2025.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is in custody from 23.02.2025. 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.
6. It is true that the allegation against the
petitioner is serious. The maximum punishment that
2025:KER:25778
can be imposed for the offences alleged is below 7
years. The petitioner is in custody from 23.02.2025.
Considering the period of detention and also
considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I
think the petitioner can be released on bail, after
imposing 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
2025:KER:25778
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 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)
2025:KER:25778
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
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
2025:KER:25778
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/her
from disclosing such facts to the Court
2025:KER:25778
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. The observations and
findings in this order is only for the
purpose of deciding this bail
application. The principle laid down by
this Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of
Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260]
is applicable in this case also.
6. If any of the above
2025:KER:25778
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
