Kerala High Court
Shuhaib K vs State Of Kerala on 28 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:26875
BAIL APPL. NO. 4085 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 4085 OF 2025
CRIME NO.2097/2024 OF CBCID, KOZHIKODE, Kozhikode
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl.
NO.619 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SHUHAIB K
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O USAIMATH CHOLAYIL HOUSE, (P O) KODUVALLY
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673572
BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV
V.VINAY
M.S.ANEER
SARATH K.P.
ANILKUMAR C.R.
K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
DIPA V.
M.MUHAMMED FIRDOUSE(K/459/2013)
RESPONDENT/STATE
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
SR PP-HRITHWIK C S
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:26875
BAIL APPL. NO. 4085 OF 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A. No.4085 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of March, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime
No.2097/2024 of CBCID, Kozhikode. The above case is
registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable
under Sections 316(2), 316(3), 316(5), 318(2), 318(4), 61(2)(a)
and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, BNS).
3. 3. The allegation in this case is that there was
leakage of the question paper. The Commissioner of
Examinations and Director of General Education Department
wrote a letter to the Crime Branch Head Quarters alleging that
the questions in the question papers of the Second Terminal
Examination of 2023 and of the First and Second Terminal
examination in 2024 were released in the YouTube channel of
'MS Solutions' owned by the petitioner, hours before the start
2025:KER:26875
BAIL APPL. NO. 4085 OF 2025
of the examination under the name 'question prediction'. It is
further stated that these questions were predicted by the said
person, who is a Chemistry Teacher, by leaking the question
paper. Videos of questions being released in this way before
the examination of all subjects are seen on this channel, and all
these questions appeared in the examination is the complaint.
Hence, the authority demanded an investigation into this
matter. As per the direction of the State Police Chief, a
preliminary inquiry was conducted by a special team headed by
the Dy.S.P. Crime Branch under the direct supervision of
Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Kozhikode and
Wayanad. In the preliminary report, it was recommended to
register a case in the State Crime Branch Unit. Accordingly,
the Additional Director General of Police, Crime Branch
Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram, granted permission to
register a crime in the Crime Branch Police Station and
entrusted the investigation of the case to the Dy. S.P. II, Crime
Branch, Kozhikode Unit. Accordingly, Crime No.2097/2024 was
registered by the Crime Branch Police Station alleging the
aforesaid offences.
2025:KER:26875
BAIL APPL. NO. 4085 OF 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 06.03.2025. The counsel
submitted that the petitioner surrendered when this Court
rejected the anticipatory bail application and the petitioner is
in custody from that day onwards. The counsel further
submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if
this Court grant him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the
bail application.
6. The consideration of a bail application under
Section 482 BNSS and 483 BNSS are different. This Court
considered the bail application of the petitioner under Section
482 BNSS and dismissed the same by a detailed order as
evident by Annexure-1. Now the petitioner surrendered after
Annexure-1 order. He is already interrogated by the
Investigating Officer after getting custody. Now he is in jail
from 06.03.2025. No criminal antecedent is alleged against
the petitioner. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not
necessary. The petitioner can be directed to co-operate with
2025:KER:26875
BAIL APPL. NO. 4085 OF 2025
the investigation.
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 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
2025:KER:26875
BAIL APPL. NO. 4085 OF 2025
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 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
2025:KER:26875
BAIL APPL. NO. 4085 OF 2025
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 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:26875
BAIL APPL. NO. 4085 OF 2025
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 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 petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10
am, till final report is filed.
6. 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.
2025:KER:26875
BAIL APPL. NO. 4085 OF 2025
7. 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
jv
