IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Muhammed Noushad. A.T., S/o. Aboobacker – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala – Respondent
BA No.5204 and 5206 of 2025
Decided On : 10-04-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code - Section 420 - Information Technology Act - Section 66D - Bail applications filed by the accused in two connected crimes involving online fraud and cheating - The accused allegedly defrauded the complainants of substantial amounts through deceitful online activities. (Paras 1 - 3 )
(B) Bail - The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception is reaffirmed, emphasizing the necessity for courts to grant bail when a case is made out, notwithstanding serious allegations. (Paras 6 - 8 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused in two separate crimes involving online fraud, with allegations of cheating and coercion for monetary gain. The petitioner was previously denied bail but is now granted bail under stringent conditions after considering the period of detention.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner could be released on bail with conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and prevent further offenses.
Issues: The main issues addressed include the appropriateness of granting bail in light of serious allegations and the conditions under which bail can be granted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the grant of bail is a right unless there are compelling reasons to deny it, and emphasized the need for courts to objectively assess bail applications.
Result: Bail applications allowed with conditions.
ORDER :
(P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.)
These Bail Applications are filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023. These two bail applications are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these two cases by a common order.
2. The petitioner in both these cases are one and the same person. He is an accused in Crime No.415/2024 of Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam and in Crime No.10/2024 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Kasargod. Crime No.415/2024 was registered by the Infopark Police alleging offence punishable under Section 318(4) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The prosecution case in this case is that the accused cheated the defacto complainant for an amount of Rs.2,64,000/- through an online fraud by portraying themselves to be the officers of the Mumbai Police and threatened the defacto complainant that his accounts would be frozen and forced him to pay a large amount of money to prevent such coercive action.
3. Crime No.10/2024 was registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Kasargod, alleging offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 66D of the Information Technology Act . The prosecution case in the above crime is that the accused along with the other accused contacted the defacto complainant through whatapp and telegram chat and offered a home-based part-time job. It is also alleged that the accused collected huge amount from the defacto complainant. The amount is not returned and the job is also not provided as offered. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The petitioner was arrested in connection with Crime No.10/2024 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Kasargod on 12.02.2025 and his arrest was recorded in Crime No.415/2024 of Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam on 18.02.2025. The petitioner earlier filed bail applications before this Court as BA No.2910/2025 in Crime No.10/2024 and BA No.2990/2025 in Crime No.415/2024. After hearing both sides, this Court was not inclined to grant bail at that stage. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the bail applications with liberty to move it again. This Court granted liberty to the petitioner to move it again after four weeks. Accordingly, the present bail applications are filed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the period of detention, I think, petitioners can be released on bail 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 in as much 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 st
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail when justified, regardless of serious allegations.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail unless compelling reasons exist to deny it.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail unless compelling reasons exist to deny it.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail unless compelling reasons exist to deny it.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail when conditions are met, ensuring fair trial rights.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail unless compelling reasons exist to deny it.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail unless compelling reasons exist to deny it.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail when warranted, ensuring the accused's right to a fair trial.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail unless compelling reasons exist to deny it.
Bail is established as the rule and jail as the exception, necessitating the court to grant bail under stringent conditions even for serious allegations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.