B.A.No.4924 of 2025 1 2025:KER:30772 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4924 OF 2025 CRIME NO.277/2025 OF Pallikkathode Police Station, Kottayam PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.2 & 3: 1 ADARSH JAYAN, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O JAYAN V.T., PALLIKUNNEL HOUSE, THATHAMPALLIKUNNU BHAGOM, VAZHOOR KARA, VAZHOOR VILLAGE, VAZHOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686504 2 AKHIL P.S. @ APPU, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O SUNIL KUMAR, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KEECHERIPPADI BHAGOM, VAZHOOR KARA, VAZHOOR VILLAGE, VAZHOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686504 BY ADV SIJO PATHAPARAMBIL JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY ADV. PP-G SUDHEER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.4924 of 2025 2 2025:KER:30772 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- B.A.No.4924 of 2025 ------------------------------- Dated this the 09th day of April, 2025 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioners are accused Nos.2 & 3 in Crime No.277/2025 of Pallickathodu Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Secs. 78(1)(i), 79 & 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'), Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act. 3. The prosecution case is that the 1st accused and the defacto complainant were in a love relationship. The said relationship was broken. Due to this, the 1st accused developed animosity towards the defacto complainant. The 1st accused threatened the defacto complainant to publish her nude photos via social media. It is alleged that the 2nd accused received nude B.A.No.4924 of 2025 3 2025:KER:30772 photos of the defacto complainant from the 1st accused and he shared the nude photos of the defacto complainant to the 3rd accused. The specific allegation against the 3rd accused/2nd petitioner is that, he shared the nude photographs of the defacto complainant to his friends via social media. Thus, the accused has committed the offence as alleged. 4. Admittedly, the petitioners are in custody from 23.03.2025. The main allegation is against the 1st accused. The allegation against the petitioners is that they shared the nude photographs of the defacto complainant received from the 1st accused via social media. It is true that the allegation against the petitioners is also serious. But, they are in custody from 23.03.2025. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioners can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. 5. 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 B.A.No.4924 of 2025 4 2025:KER:30772 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. 6. 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 B.A.No.4924 of 2025 5 2025:KER:30772 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) 7. 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".” 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: B.A.No.4924 of 2025 6 2025:KER:30772 1. Petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 3. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. B.A.No.4924 of 2025 7 2025:KER:30772 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 petitioners, 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 DM