Ravi Panakkal v. State of Kerala

``` 2025:KER:30801 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] 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. 4906 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.131/2025 OF GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` RAVI PANAKKAL, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O SANKU PANAKKAL, PANAKKAL HOUSE, THIRUNELLOOR DESOM, PAVARATTY VILLAGE, THRISSUR., PIN – 688 541. ``` ``` BY ADV VINAY VIJAY SHANKER ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031. ``` ``` BY ADV G SUDHEER, PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 09.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:30801 ``` B.A No.4906 of 2025 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------B.A.No.4906 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 (BNSS). 2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.131/2025 of Guruvayoor Police Station, Thrissur, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’), 2023. 3. The prosecution case is that on 13.04.2024, the accused falsely represented to the complainant that he would provide her with an Activa scooter. Based on this misrepresentation, the complainant, relying on the assurance of the accused, transferred an amount of ₹60,000/- to the account of "News of India," an NGO. It is alleged that, on the same day, the accused unlawfully **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:30801 ``` B.A No.4906 of 2025 3 obtained an additional ₹3,000/- in cash from the complainant. In October 2024, the accused again procured an amount of ₹1,300/- from the complainant, bringing the total amount received by the accused to ₹64,300/-. However, despite receiving the entire amount, the accused failed to deliver the promised Activa scooter and not repaid the money. 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 in custody from 21.02.2025 and his arrest in this case is recorded on 08.03.2025. Petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions, if this grants him bail. 6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He submitted that the petitioner is involved in four other cases, out of which, two cases are with similar nature. **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:30801` B.A No.4906 of 2025 4 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is serious. But, the fact remains that the petitioner is in custody from 21.02.2025. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioner may not be necessary. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, I think, 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 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. 9. Moreover, in **Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India [2024 KHC 6431]** , the Hon'ble Supreme Court ``` 2025:KER:30801 ``` 5 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** B.A No.4906 of 2025 ## 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 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:30801 ``` B.A No.4906 of 2025 6 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 bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:30801` B.A No.4906 of 2025 7 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 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. **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:30801` B.A No.4906 of 2025 8 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 with the facts of the case so as to dissuade 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 he is accused, or suspected, 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 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:30801` B.A No.4906 of 2025 9 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 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