IMPORTANT POINT
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail when warranted, ensuring the accused's right to a fair trial.

ORDER :

These Bail Applications are filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita . These two bail applications are connected and therefore, I am disposing these cases by a common order.

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1012/2023 of Kalady Police Station and Crime No.142/2025 of Pudukkad Police Station.

3. Crime No.1012/2023 is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 408 , 420 , 465 , 467 , 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that with the intent and deliberate plan to deceive and defraud the complainant for wrongful gain and to cause unjust loss to the complainant, convinced him that an order could be obtained for purchasing and selling Government vehicles under the tourism department on quotation system and collected huge amount.

5. Crime No.142/2025 is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 318 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

5. The allegation against the petitioner in the above crime is that he misrepresented himself as personal staff of the Minister and dishonestly induced the son of the complainant into believing that he would secure him a job as a System Administrator in the Information and Public Relations Department, Thiruvanathapuram. It is also alleged that the petitioner accepted a sum of Rs.60,000/- from the 3 ^rd respondent on several occasions and thus the petitioner committed the above offences.

6. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised different contentions and submitted that these are false cases foisted against the petitioner.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications and submitted that as per the report received from the Pudukadu Police Station, the petitioner is involved in 9 other cases with similar nature.

7. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner is suffering from serious illness and he suffered with a stroke and his left side is paralysed. The learned counsel for the petitioner produced some medical documents to prove the same.

8. The petitioner is in custody from 04.02.2025 onwards. The allegations against the petitioner are very serious. But,considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody from 04.02.2025 and also on medical grounds, the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.

9. 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.

10. 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 sa