IMPORTANT POINT
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail when a case is made out, regardless of the seriousness of allegations.

ORDER :

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

2. Petitioner in these cases is one and the same.The petitioner is the accused in different crimes registered at Kottayam West Police Station and Kottayam East Police Station. These cases are registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and also under Sections 10 and 24 of Emigration Act.

3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner is running an institute by name ‘Can Assure Consultancy’ at Kottayam. The petitioner is the Managing Director of the said consultancy. It is alleged that the petitioner cheated the defacto complainants in this case by promising that they will provide job at UK and Australia. The said promise has not been fulfilled and the amount paid is not returned. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. The petitioner was arrested on 25.02.2025. Her arrest was recorded subsequently in the other crimes also. The petitioner is in custody from 25.02.2025.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

5. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is serious. But, the fact remains that the petitioner is in custody from 25.02.2025. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary. The maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offences alleged are upto 7 years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail in these crimes, 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, 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 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)

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