Akhil P P v State of Kerala

``` 2025:KER:31821 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 5265 OF 2025`** ``` 1 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5265 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1/2025 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, KANNUR ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 03.04.2025 IN CRMC ``` ``` NO.392 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY ``` ## **`PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:`** ``` AKHIL P P AGED 25 YEARS S/O SASIDHARAN, ANDHAPARAMBATH HOUSE MALAPARAMBA- PO, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673009 ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.VENUGOPAL SRILAKSHMI T.S. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER KANNUR CYBER POLICE STATION, KANNUR CITY KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670012`** ``` 2025:KER:31821 ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 5265 OF 2025`** ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`SRI G SUDHEER, PP`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:31821 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 5265 OF 2025`** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. --------------------------------** **B.A. No.5265 of 2025** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of April, 2025** ## **`ORDER`** This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1/2025 of Kannur Cyber Crime Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 111(2)(b) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, BNS) and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 3. The prosecution case is that, during the month of November 2024, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention of cheating, contacted the defacto complainant through social media platforms like Facebook, Telegram etc. and by offering huge profit by online trading, ``` 2025:KER:31821 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5265 OF 2025 ``` ``` 4 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** received a total sum of Rs.31,61,632/- through different bank accounts. It is alleged that the accused have neither paid any profit nor did return the amount. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 21.02.2025 and he is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the Public Prosecutor conceded that as per the report received by him from the Investigating Officer, no criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioner. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is serious. It is an online fraud. But no purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner indefinitely. No criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. ``` 2025:KER:31821 ``` ``` 5 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 5265 OF 2025`** 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 for grant of bail in accordance with the law. "Bail ``` 2025:KER:31821 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5265 OF 2025 ``` ``` 6 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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 modifcation that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfed. 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 breach. On account of non - grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is ``` 2025:KER:31821 ``` ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 5265 OF 2025`** 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 cooperate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any ``` 2025:KER:31821 ``` ``` 8 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 5265 OF 2025`** 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. The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court and if he has no passport, an affidavit to that effect shall be filed. 5. 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. 6. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10 am, till final report is filed. 7. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by this ``` 2025:KER:31821 ``` ``` 9 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 5265 OF 2025`** Court in **Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala** [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also. 8. 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