Muhammed Abdul Hakkim v. State of Kerala and The Station House Officer, Rural Cyber Crime Police Station, Thrissur Rural

BA No.3827 of 2025 1 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:26861` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 3827 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1/2025 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, THRISSUR AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 14.03.2025 IN CRMP NO.2973 OF 2025 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, IRINJALAKUDA ``` ## **`PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:`** ``` MUHAMMED ABDUL HAKKIM AGED 37 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED KUTTY, KOTTILIL HOUSE, AMAYUR. P.O. PALAKKAD, PIN – 679 303 ``` ``` BY ADVS. SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR BENNY ANTONY PAREL AFSANA KHAN PRAMITHA AUGUSTINE SREERAJ S. RAJARAM SNEHA J. ADARSH PADMANABHAN AMAL DILEEP ``` ## **`RESPONDENT( S )STATE & COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031`** - **`2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER RURAL CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION,`** BA No.3827 of 2025 2 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26861 ``` ## **`THRISSUR RURAL, THRISSUR, PIN - 680125`** ## **`BY ADV.:`** ## **`SR PP - NOUSHAD K A`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` BA No.3827 of 2025 3 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:26861` **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------BA No.3827 of 2025 -------------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of March, 2025** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. 2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.01/2025 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Thrissur Rural, Iringalakuda. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and also under Section 66D of the Information Technology Act. 3. The prosecution case is that, the BA No.3827 of 2025 4 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26861 ``` accused with an intention to deceive the defacto complainant, forwarded advertisements through google account, offering huge profit by investing in IPO Stock Trading through FIVEPCLO3 Trading Platform. Believing the words of the accused, the defacto complainant installed FIVEPCLO3 application and invest money to the tune of Rs.1,06,75,000/- in IPO Stock Trading during the period from 08.01.2025 to 14.02.2025. When the defacto complainant tried to withdraw the money he invested, accused persons demanded to pay additional money as service charge. Thereafter the accused persons did not return the money or profit to the defacto complainant. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for BA No.3827 of 2025 5 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26861 ``` the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is not correct. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 09.03.2025. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court, if this Court grants him bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious and huge amount is involved in this case. The petitioner may not be released on bail at this stage. 7. It is surprising to see that the citizens of the country are investing huge amount in strange website expecting more profit. It is clear that the website through which the defacto complainant BA No.3827 of 2025 6 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26861 ``` traded is not authorized. The intention of the defacto complainant is to get profit. I don’t want to make any further opinion about the same. But, the petitioner is in custody from 09.03.2025. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary. The petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. 8. 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 judgmentthe petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer on first of every month till the trial is over.s, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail BA No.3827 of 2025 7 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26861 ``` 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. 9. 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 BA No.3827 of 2025 8 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:26861` 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) ## 10. 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 BA No.3827 of 2025 9 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:26861` 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 decisions and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following conditions: _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._ BA No.3827 of 2025 10 ``` 2025:KER:26861 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** _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 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,_ BA No.3827 of 2025 11 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26861 ``` _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_ `w` _ith law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach_ BA No.3827 of 2025 12 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26861 ``` _the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of_ _the above condition._ **Sd/-** nvj **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE**