Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and the prosecution must make a strong case for continuing the accused in judicial custody.

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the 8th accused in Crime No.214 of 2024 of the Venagara Police Station, Malappuram, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 . The petitioner was arrested on 09.05.2024.

2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, made a deceitful advertisement for online investments and induced the de facto complainant to invest Rs.1,08,42,222/- in a portal named "Black Rock Angle One". Although the de facto complainant invested the money in the bank account of the accused, the accused did not pay any profit or return the capital. The specific overt act alleged against the 8th accused is that he provided sim cards using the identity cards of the local people, without their knowledge to enable the accused to commit the above offences. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

3. Heard Sri.K.Rakesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.C.S Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations levelled against him. A reading of the First Information Report would substantiate that the petitioner is not involved in the monetary transactions alleged by the prosecution. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he made use of the identity cards of the local people and took sim cards in their name and gave it to other accused to commit the crime. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 40 days, the investigation in the case so far as it relates to the petitioner, is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation is in progress. He also stated that if the petitioner is released on bail there is a likelihood of him tampering with the evidence.

Hence, the application may be dismissed. Nonetheless, he did not dispute the fact that the overt act alleged against the petitioner is that he used the identity cards of the local people, without their knowledge and took sim cards in their names and gave the sim cards to other accused to commit the offences.

6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that he made use of the identity cards of the local people and took sim cards in their names without their knowledge and gave the sim cards to other accused to commit the offences.

7. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI , [2012 1 SCC 40] , the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, until a person is found guilty. Any imprisonment prior to conviction is to be considered as punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct.

8. In Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. , [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is the rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. Even though the grant of bail is entirely the discretion of the court, it has to be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of each case and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner.

9. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception is on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Once the charge sheet is filed, a strong case has to be made out for continuing a person in judicial custody.

10. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially on considering the specific role played by the petitioner, that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for t