Muhammed Rafi and Abdul Gafoor P.K. v. State of Kerala

``` 2025:KER:30735 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025/19TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4948 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.750/2024 OF VARANDARAPPALLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.3 & 4:`** ``` 1MUHAMMED RAFI AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. FIROZ. PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, KAIPPANCHERY, DESAM, SULTHAN BATHERY P.O, SULTHAN BATHERY VILLAGE, PIN – 673 592. ``` ``` 2ABDUL GAFOOR P.K. AGED 24 YEARS, /O. MUHAMMED P.K., KAIPPANCHERY PULPARAMBIL HOUSE, VENGOOR DESAM, KUPPADY (V). SULTHAN BATHERY., PIN – 673 592. ``` ``` BY ADVS. V.VISAL AJAYAN RAJESH KUMAR R. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031. ``` ``` BY ADV NOUSHAD K A, SR PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:30735 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** B.A No.4948 of 2025 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------B.A.No.4948 of 2025** ## **------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of April, 2025** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioners are the accused Nos.3 and 4 in Crime No.750 of 2024 of Varantharappilly Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners and another alleging offences punishable under Section 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (for short’BNS’) and also under Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners and the other accused managing online business in the name of a company called ‘ASO’. It is alleged that the petitioners with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the defacto complainant, received an amount of Rs.3,16,759.94/- from the defacto complainant. At the time of receiving the **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:30735 ``` ## B.A No.4948 of 2025 3 money, the petitioners assured the defacto complainant that the company would repay the amount to him with profit. But, the amount is not returned and the profit is also not paid. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. ## 4. Heard. 5. It is true that the allegation against the petitioners is serious. But, the fact remains that the petitioners are in custody from 19.03.2025. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioners is not necessary. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioners 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 Directorate of Enforcement [2019 (16) SCALE 870],** after considering all the earlier judgments, **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:30735 ``` B.A No.4948 of 2025 4 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 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 ``` 2025:KER:30735 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** B.A No.4948 of 2025 5 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 rule and jail is exception".” **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:30735 ``` B.A No.4948 of 2025 6 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. Petitioners 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 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 ``` 2025:KER:30735 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** B.A No.4948 of 2025 7 dissuade him/her 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. 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. **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:30735 ``` B.A No.4948 of 2025 8 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** AMR