Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(KER) 817

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J.
Siby K.A – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor and ors. – Respondents
Bail Appl. No. 1547 of 2025, Bail Appl. No. 1542 of 2025
Decided On : 06-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADVS. GEORGE MATHEW SUNIL KUMAR A.G ELSA DENNY PINDIS MATHEW K.T. GEORGE K.V. STEPHY K REGI ADITHYA BENZEER MEDHA B.S. JOHN ZACHARIAH DOMINIC
For the Respondent: BY ADV NOUSHAD.K.A, SR PP

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail when conditions are satisfied to ensure fair trial rights.

Headnote:
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 483 - Bail applications filed for accused in serious offences including misappropriation - Indefinite incarceration deemed unnecessary; bail granted with stringent conditions. (Paras 2, 8, 9, 10, 11)

(B) Principle of Bail - Bail is the rule, jail is the exception; courts must grant bail when conditions are satisfied, ensuring fair trial rights. (Paras 9, 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused in two serious crimes, alleged misappropriation of public funds while serving as President of a cooperative society, has been in custody since January 16, 2025.

Findings of Court:
The court found that continued detention was not necessary and granted bail under strict conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation.

Issues: The main issues included the necessity of continued detention versus the right to bail and the seriousness of the allegations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that bail should be granted as a rule, not withheld as punishment, and that courts must objectively assess bail applications based on established legal principles.

Result: Bail application allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner accused of misappropriation (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 7)
2. counsel argues against allegations (Para 6)
3. court considers seriousness of allegations (Para 8)
4. bail is the rule (Para 9 , 10 , 11)

ORDER :

(P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.)

These Bail Applications are filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ).

2. These Bail Applications are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these cases by a common order.Petitioner is these cases are one and the same.

3. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.450/2024 & 361/2024 of Kuttampuzha Police Station. Now, the investigation of the case is taken over by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C-Branch Ernakulam. The offences alleged in Crime No.450/2024 are under Sections 406 , 420 , 417 , 463 , 468 and 408 , 465 , 477(A) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code . The offences alleged in Crime No.361/2024 are under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ), 2023.

4. The prosecution case is that, accused collected a huge amount from the public for Agricultural Improvement Co-Operative Society (for short Society), Kuttampuzha. It is alleged that the deposited amount is misappropriated by the petitioner and the other accused.

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

6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is not correct. Petitioner was the President of the Society. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 16.01.2025. Petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.

7. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious.

8. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is serious. But, indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary. The prosecution can prove the case through documentary evidence and oral evidence. The continued detention of the petitioner may not be necessary. But, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, petitioner can be released on bail after imposing string conditions. There can be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the 3^rd respondent on Mondays at 10:00am., till final report is filed.

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 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 un

Click Here to Read the rest of this document