Saidali Aged 35 Years A. M. Iqbal v. State of Kerala

1 **BAIL APPL. NO. 5257 OF 2025** ## 2025:KER:31832 # **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. 5257 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.424/2025 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, Kollam** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SAIDALI AGED 35 YEARS A. M. IQBAL, LIBAS MANZIL, AYIRAM THENGU, KOOTTIKKADA, MAYYANADU, PIN - 691020** **BY ADVS. V.VISAL AJAYAN RAJESH KUMAR R.** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI NOUSHAD K A, SR.PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **11.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 **BAIL APPL. NO. 5257 OF 2025** 2025:KER:31832 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **–-------------------------------------** **B.A. No.5257 of 2025 -------------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of April, 2025** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.424/2025 of Eravipuram Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 3. The gist of the allegations against the petitioner is that, the petitioner was the proprietor of the institution named ‘Safari Travels and General Service’ functioning at Koottikkada. The prosecution case is that, with dishonest intention of making unlawful gain, the accused promised the de-facto complainant and her friends that he would provide flight tickets through his institution to migrate 3 **BAIL APPL. NO. 5257 OF 2025** 2025:KER:31832 to New Zealand for attending a training programme named ‘CAP’ lasting for 15 days for procuring licence from there and induced them to transfer amounts for the same and after receiving 9 lakhs from them, the petitioner failed to arrange₹ flight tickets as promised and thereby cheated them. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 10.03.2025. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that there is criminal antecedents to the petitioner. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The admitted prosecution case is that the petitioner has not arranged flight 4 **BAIL APPL. NO. 5257 OF 2025** 2025:KER:31832 ticket after obtaining the money. The petitioner is in custody from 10.03.2025. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail, after imposing stringent conditions. 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 5 **BAIL APPL. NO. 5257 OF 2025** 2025:KER:31832 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 modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. 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 6 **BAIL APPL. NO. 5257 OF 2025** 2025:KER:31832 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".” 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 7 **BAIL APPL. NO. 5257 OF 2025** 2025:KER:31832 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/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 down by this Court in **Anzar** 8 **BAIL APPL. NO. 5257 OF 2025** 2025:KER:31832 **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** SKS