Kerala High Court
Muhammed Safvan vs The Station House Officer on 27 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BA No.4203 of 2025
1
2025:KER:26504
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 4203 OF 2025
CRIME NO.54/2025 OF KARUVARAKUNDU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMP NO.409 OF
2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I,MANJERI
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
MUHAMMED SAFVAN
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O SAIDU, PARAKKAL HOUSE,
MARUTHINGAL, KARUVARAKUNDU P.O., NILAMBUR,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 523
BY ADVS.
SUNNY MATHEW
BHAVANA K.K
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KARUVARAKUNDU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676 523
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP- HRITHWIK C S
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BA No.4203 of 2025
2
2025:KER:26504
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
BA No.4203 of 2025
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
(BNSS), 2023.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime
No.54/2025 of Karuvarakundu Police Station,
Malappuram. The above case is registered
against the petitioner alleging offences
punishable under Sections 376, 354, 354A, 354B,
354C, 354D, 509, 350, 447, 448 and 506 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that, from
30.11.2021 onwards, the accused committed
2025:KER:26504
stalking by following the defacto complainant
over telephone. On 02.07.2023 during day time,
when there was no one at home, the accused
trespassed into the house of the defacto
complainant, forcefully took her to the bedroom
and committed rape on her and threatened that
her nude videos will be circulated, if she reveals
the incident to any one. Hence, it is alleged that
the accused committed the offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that, as directed by this Court in Annexure-A3, the
petitioner surrendered on 20.03.2025. The
counsel submitted that it is a false case foisted
against the petitioner. The counsel also
2025:KER:26504
submitted that the alleged incident happened on
02.07.2023 and the First Information Statement
was registered only on 2025. It is also submitted
that it is a case based on a complaint filed before
the jurisdictional court which was forwarded
under Section 175(3) of BNSS. The counsel also
submitted that the petitioner was assaulted and a
case was registered against the husband of the
defacto complainant as Crime No.98/2024. Two
weeks prior to the registration of Crime
No.98/2024, husband of the defacto complainant
filed a complaint which was compromised, in
which there was no allegation of rape. The
counsel also submitted that the petitioner is
ready to abide any condition imposed by this
Court, if this Court grant him bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
2025:KER:26504
application.
7. This Court considered the contentions of
the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
Admittedly, the crime is registered based on a
private complaint filed before the jurisdictional
court which was forwarded under Section 175(3)
of BNSS. The alleged incident happened on
02.07.2023. The FIR is registered in the year
2025. The petitioner earlier filed a bail
application before this Court under Section 482 of
BNSS. This Court was not inclined to grant bail
under Section 482 of BNSS. At that stage, the
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is ready to surrender before the
Investigating Officer. Accordingly, Annexure-A3
order was passed. Now, the petitioner
surrendered before the Investigating Officer and
2025:KER:26504
he is in custody from 20.03.2025. 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
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
2025:KER:26504
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 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
2025:KER:26504
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
2025:KER:26504
"bail is rule and jail is exception"."
Considering the dictum laid down in the
above decisions and considering the facts and
circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is
allowed with the following conditions:
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
2025:KER:26504
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.
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
2025:KER:26504
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 conditions are
violated by the petitioner, the
jurisdictional Court can cancel the
bail in accordance with law, even
though the bail is granted by this
Court. The prosecution is at liberty
to approach the jurisdictional court
to cancel the bail, if there is any
violation of the above condition.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
nvj JUDGE
