Neethu Rethnakaran v. State of Kerala

``` 2025:KER:26953 ``` ``` 1 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4009 OF 2025`** ## **`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. 4009 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.43/2025 OF Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:`** ``` NEETHU RETHNAKARAN AGED 34 YEARS D/O. RETHNAKARAN, NEETHU BHAVAN, KOCHUPLACHERY, PUNALUR P.O., KOLLAM,, PIN - 691331 ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.R.VINOD M.S.LETHA KURIAN MAXIE ATHIRA K.S. NAYANA K. SHENOY ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` 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: ``` ``` 2025:KER:26953 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4009 OF 2025 ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------B.A. No.4009 of 2025** ## **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of March, 2025** ## **`ORDER`** This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.o.43/2025 of Infopark Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that, the 2[nd] accused has informed the defacto complainant that he and his friend would be given employment visa to do the employment as warehouse assistant in Hungary subject to the payment of Rs.3,50,000/-. It is the case of the defacto complainant that he has deposited the said amount on various occasions into the bank account of the concern called NSAI ABROAD ``` 2025:KER:26953 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4009 OF 2025 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** CONSULTANCY PVT.LTD., in which the petitioner is a partner. However, inspite of the payment of the amount, the defacto complainant has not obtained visa and the amount is also not returned. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a lady and she is only a sleeping partner and she is not engaged in the day-to-day affairs of the company. The counsel also submitted that there is no criminal antecedent to the petitioner and she is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grants her bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. After hearing both sides and also considering the fact that the petitioner is a lady and no criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioner, I think bail can be granted to the petitioner after imposing stringent conditions. ``` 2025:KER:26953 ``` ``` 4 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4009 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 is ``` 2025:KER:26953 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4009 OF 2025 ``` ``` 5 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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 ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4009 OF 2025 ``` ``` 6 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:26953` 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 person acquainted ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:26953` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4009 OF 2025`** 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 she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she 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 to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are ``` 2025:KER:26953 ``` ``` 8 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4009 OF 2025`** 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