2025:KER:27554 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 3987 OF 2025 CRIME NO.354/2025 OF ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA PETITIONER/ACCUSED: MUHAMMAD HAFFIS AGED 26 YEARS,S/O. SAJEEV, HAFFIS MANZIL, THIRUVAMBADY P.O., ERAVUKADU WARD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688 009. BY ADVS. SURESH JOSEPH VIDHU C. SANALKUMAR.B RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031. 2 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX BY ADVS. ADV ARUNDAS AMBILY JOSHY ANAMIKA NOUSHAD K.A., SR PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:27554 B.A No.3987 of 2025 2 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- B.A.No.3987 of 2025 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 2025 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.354 of 2025 of Alappuzha South Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 69 and 74 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (for short’BNS’). 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner with intention to commit rape on the defacto complainant, made friendship with her through Instagram and on 14.12.2024 sent message to her about her interest in photo shoot and thereafter on 21.12.2024 messaged her for a video content. Thereafter on 2025:KER:27554 B.A No.3987 of 2025 3 25.12.2024, while she went to the house of accused for photo shoot, the accused caught hold of her and thereby caused mental agony to her. Thereafter, the accused again made her to believe that he would marry her after her degree course and on 23.01.2025, while she went to the house of accused for photo shoot, committed rape on her and thereafter, two times he raped her. However, later he withdrew his promise to marry her. Hence this case is registered. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner, the defacto complainant and the Public Prosecutor. 5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 11.03.2025. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. 6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 2025:KER:27554 B.A No.3987 of 2025 4 7. Counsel appearing for the defacto complainant seriously opposed the bail application. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is trying to disclose the identity of the victim. The counsel submitted that the petitioner may not be released on bail. 8. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner, the defacto complainant and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. This Court perused the First Information Statement. But, a perusal of the same would show that there is continuous relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. According to the victim, it is based on a promise to marriage. The Apex Court in Mahesh Damu Khare V. The State Of Maharashtra & Anr [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 921], observed like this: 22. In our view, if a man is accused of having sexual relationship by making a false promise of marriage and if he is to be held criminally liable, any such physical relationship must be traceable directly to the false promise made and not qualified by other circumstances or consideration. A woman may have reasons to have physical relationship other than the 2025:KER:27554 B.A No.3987 of 2025 5 promise of marriage made by the man, such as personal liking for the male partner without insisting upon formal marital ties. Thus, in a situation where physical relationship is maintained for a prolonged period knowingly by the woman, it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical relationship was purely because of the alleged promise made by the appellant to marry her. Thus, unless it can be shown that the physical relationship was purely because of the promise of marriage, thereby having a direct nexus with the physical relationship without being influenced by any other consideration, it cannot be said that there was vitiation of consent under misconception of fact. 9. Keeping in mind the above dictum, I think the petitioner can be released on bail. Especially, because, he is in custody from 11.03.2025. 10. 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 2025:KER:27554 B.A No.3987 of 2025 6 rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. 11. 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 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 2025:KER:27554 B.A No.3987 of 2025 7 deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Art.21 of our Constitution.” (underline supplied) 12. 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".” Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of 2025:KER:27554 B.A No.3987 of 2025 8 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 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 2025:KER:27554 B.A No.3987 of 2025 9 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 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 2025:KER:27554 B.A No.3987 of 2025 10 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 AMR