Kerala High Court

Rahul vs State Of Kerala on 16 October, 2025

Author: K.Babu

Bench: K. Babu

B.A.Nos.12375 & 12377 of 2025       1



                                                       2025:KER:77166

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

   THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 24TH ASWINA, 1947

                      BAIL APPL. NO. 12375 OF 2025

    CRIME NO.438/2025 OF Kudiyanmala Police Station, Kannur

PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:

             RAHUL, AGED 25 YEARS
             S/O. SUJA, PALAYKKAL HOUSE, KOLLADA, CHERUPUZHA,
             VAYAKKARA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670511

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.M.ANUROOP
             SRI.M.DEVESH
             SHRI.MURSHID ALI M.
             SMT.JYOTHIS MARY



RESPONDENT/STATE:

             STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031


             ADV.SRI.G.SUDHEER - PP


      THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.10.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl.NO.12377/2025, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A.Nos.12375 & 12377 of 2025        2



                                                         2025:KER:77166

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

   THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 24TH ASWINA, 1947

                      BAIL APPL. NO. 12377 OF 2025

    CRIME NO.437/2025 OF Kudiyanmala Police Station, Kannur

AGAINST    THE   ORDER/JUDGMENT    DATED    16.09.2025   IN   Bail   Appl.

NO.10389 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:

             RAHUL, AGED 25 YEARS
             S/O. SUJA, PALAYKKAL HOUSE, KOLLADA, CHERUPUZHA,
             VAYAKKARA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670511

             BY ADVS.SRI.M.ANUROOP
             SRI.M.DEVESH
             SMT.JYOTHIS MARY
             SHRI.MURSHID ALI M.


RESPONDENT/STATE:

             STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

             ADV.SRI.SUDHEER G - PP


      THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.10.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl.NO.12375/2025, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A.Nos.12375 & 12377 of 2025            3



                                                               2025:KER:77166

                                  K.BABU, J.
                ......................................................
                   B.A.Nos.12375 & 12377 of 2025
                  ...................................................
              Dated this the 16th day of October, 2025

                                    ORDER

These bail applications are filed under section 482 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').

2. Petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime Nos.437 of 2025 and

438 of 2025 of Kudiyanmala Police Station, Kannur. The offences

alleged against the petitioner and the other accused are punishable

under Sections 318(4), 316(1), 316(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and the other

accused had promised the de facto complainant to arrange a job

visa to go abroad and collected an amount of Rs.4,88,500/- from her

and thereafter failed to provide the employment or return the

amount and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as

the learned Public Prosecutor.

2025:KER:77166

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is innocent of the allegations levelled against him.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of

the petitioner.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

other accused had promised to arrange a visa to the de facto

complainant and the petitioner had transferred the amount received

by him to the other accused.

8. Having regard to the rival contentions, this Court finds

that there are some doubts in the genuineness of the allegations

levelled against the petitioner.

9. While considering the scope of jurisdiction under Section

438 Cr.P.C., the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Gurbaksh

Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565]

held thus:

"31. In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, if it

2025:KER:77166

appears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the State" are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. The relevance of these considerations was pointed out in State v. Captain Jagjit Singh [AIR 1962 SC 253 :

(1962) 3 SCR 622 : (1962) 1 Cri LJ 216] , which, though, was a case under the old Section 498 which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code. It is of paramount consideration to remember that the freedom of the individual is as necessary for the survival of the society as it is for the egoistic purposes of the individual. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the court may think fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail."

10. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of

Maharashtra [(2011) 1 SCC 694] the Apex Court held thus:-

"113. Arrest should be the last option and it should be

2025:KER:77166

restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. The court must carefully examine the entire available record and particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record."

(In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2020) 5 SCC 1]) the

declaration of law in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre that no

condition can be imposed while granting order of anticipatory bail

alone was overruled).

11. In Sushila Aggarwal, the Constitution Bench of the

Apex Court, following the decision in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, held

that while considering an application (for grant of anticipatory bail)

the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the

person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation,

or tampering with evidence (including intimidating witnesses),

likelihood of fleeing justice (such as leaving the country), etc.

12. Having considered the entire circumstances on the

touchstone of the precedents mentioned above, I am of the view

that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail.

2025:KER:77166

13. In the result, the Bail Applications are allowed on the

following conditions:

(1) The petitioner shall appear before the

Investigating Officer on 30.10.2025 between 10

a.m. and 11 a.m. for interrogation. In the event of his

arrest, he shall be released on bail on his executing

bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each

with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

(2) The petitioner shall continue to appear before the

Investigating Officer for interrogation on all Mondays

between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m.for a period of three

months.

(3) The petitioner shall not leave India without the

permission of the jurisdictional Court.

(4) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the

investigation, including subjecting himself to `deemed

custody', as observed in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia &

Others. v. State of Punjab and Sushila Aggarwal

2025:KER:77166

& Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. (AIR

2020 SC 831), for the purpose of discovery or

identification, if any.

Sd/-

K.BABU, JUDGE

sp/16/10/2025

2025:KER:77166

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 12375/2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CR NO 438/2025 OF KUDIYANMALA POLICE STATION IN KANNUR RURAL DISTRICT DATED 24-05-2025

Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN BAIL APPLICATION NO.

9378/2025 DATED 19-08-2025

Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN BAIL APPLICATION NO.

8283/2025 DATED 06.08.2025

2025:KER:77166