B.A. Nos. 4606 & 4625 of 2025 1 2025:KER:29948 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4606 OF 2025 CRIME NO.38/2025 OF Kottayam West Police Station, Kottayam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2025 IN CMP NO.1838 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KOTTAYAM PETITIONER/S: SANJAY AGED 47 YEARS S/O THANKAPPAN, CHINIKKEDUPPIL HOUSE, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, CHANGANASSERY P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686101 BY ADVS. M.R.SASITH R.K.CHIRUTHA ANJANA SURESH.E REETHU JACOB LIDHIYA GEORGE HASNA JABIL FARSANA NOUSHAD RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF B.A. Nos. 4606 & 4625 of 2025 2 2025:KER:29948 KERALA, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT: PP-G SUDHEER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4625/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A. Nos. 4606 & 4625 of 2025 3 2025:KER:29948 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4625 OF 2025 CRIME NO.315/2025 OF Kottayam West Police Station, Kottayam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.03.2025 IN CMP NO.2273 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KOTTAYAM PETITIONER/S: SANJAY AGED 47 YEARS S/O THANKAPPAN, CHINIKKEDUPPIL HOUSE, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, CHANGANASSERY P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686101 BY ADVS. M.R.SASITH R.K.CHIRUTHA ANJANA SURESH.E REETHU JACOB LIDHIYA GEORGE HASNA JABIL FARSANA NOUSHAD RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA B.A. Nos. 4606 & 4625 of 2025 4 2025:KER:29948 REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT: PP-G SUDHEER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4606/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A. Nos. 4606 & 4625 of 2025 5 2025:KER:29948 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J –------------------------------------- B.A. Nos. 4606 & 4625 of 2025 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2025 O R D E R These Bail Applications are filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. These bail applications are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these bail applications by a common order. 2. Petitioner in these bail applications are one and the same. He is the accused in Crime No. 315/2025 of Kottayam West Police Station and also Crime No. 38/2025 of the same Police Station. The above case is registered interalia under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Sec. 420 IPC and also under Secs. 10 and 24 of the Emigration Act, B.A. Nos. 4606 & 4625 of 2025 6 2025:KER:29948 1983. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused collected huge amount from the defacto complainant by offering job in US and UK. The job or Visa is not provided and the amount collected is not returned also. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. But, the fact remains that the petitioner is in custody from 25.02.2025 and 11.03.2025. Considering the period of detention, I think the petitioner can be released on bail, after imposing stringent conditions. 6. 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 B.A. Nos. 4606 & 4625 of 2025 7 2025:KER:29948 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. 7. 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 B.A. Nos. 4606 & 4625 of 2025 8 2025:KER:29948 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) 8. 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 B.A. Nos. 4606 & 4625 of 2025 9 2025:KER:29948 rule and jail is exception".” 8. 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 inducement, threat B.A. Nos. 4606 & 4625 of 2025 10 2025:KER:29948 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 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 B.A. Nos. 4606 & 4625 of 2025 11 2025:KER:29948 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 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