Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 44392

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
MUHAMMED RAMEES – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, CYBER POLICE STATION, WAYANAD – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 9423 OF 2025 | Crime No. 20/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Bencilal B.S., Anuja B.S., Gayathry R., Sreeraj S. Pai, Amjad Anwar, Jayakrishna P.J.
For the Respondents: Prasanth M P

Custody-based assessment can justify bail in serious cybercrime offences when risks of tampering are mitigated by strict conditions.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 318(4); Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 66D - Bail application in cyber crime case.

(B) Court exercises discretionary bail power noting custody period; seriousness of allegations notwithstanding, substantial custody already undergone may justify release on bail.

(C) Prosecution alleges misrepresentation for matrimonial scheme and small monetary loss; court acknowledges seriousness but relies on period of custody and conditions to grant bail.

(D)

Issues: Whether detention beyond current custody is necessary; standard benchmarks for grant of bail in cybercrime offences. (E) Findings/Ratio: Court, while recognizing seriousness of the offences, affords bail due to substantive custody already served; no further detention deemed necessary; conditions of bail enumerated. (F) Final Decision/

Result: Bail is allowed with specified conditions: bond, sureties, appearance, non-interference with witnesses/evidence, no commission of similar offences. (G) Parties: Petitioner (accused) and Respondent (State/Police). (H) Dissent/alternative: None.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused in a cyber crime case registered for offences under BNSS Sec. 318(4) and IT Act Sec. 66D; allegations involve misrepresentation as connected with a matrimonial site to induce the de facto complainant to part with Rs. 1,400; petitioner has been in custody since 24.07.2025. (Quoted phrases: “This bail application… under section 483”; “offences punishable under section 318(4)”; “misrepresented himself as a person connected with a matrimonial site”; “has been in custody since then.”)

Findings of Court:
The Court notes seriousness but grants bail considering the period of custody already undergone; directions include bond for Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before IO, no intimidation or tampering with witnesses or evidence, and no commission of similar offences while on bail. (Quoted phrases: “further detention is not necessary”; “the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail”; “bond for Rs.50,000”; “not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.”)

Issues: Whether continued detention is warranted given serious allegations; appropriate bail conditions for cybercrime offences. (Quoted phrases: objections by Public Prosecutor; submissions of petitioner’s counsel.)

Ratio Decidendi: Even in serious cybercrime allegations, a substantial period of custody can justify bail if conditions to protect witnesses and prevent tampering are imposed. (Quoted phrases: “considering the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, I am of the view that further detention is not necessary.”)

Result: Bail granted with specified conditions. (Quoted phrase: “the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.”)

Table of Content
1. custody-based bail justification with protective conditions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)

O R D E R

This bail application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNS S ’). 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.20 of 2025 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Wayanad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 318 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ ’) and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short ‘IT Act’).

3. According to the prosecution, from May 2025, the de facto complainant, while searching for a matrimonial alliance for his relative, petitioner misrepresented himself as a person connected with a matrimonial site and forwarded fake profiles of prospective brides and induced the de facto complainant to part with an amount of Rs.1,400/- and thereby committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 24.07.2025, and he has been in custody since then.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 24.07.2025, and hence further detention is not necessary.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that he ought not to be released on bail.

7. Petitioner is alleged to have cheated the de facto complainant after misrepresenting himself as a person connected with a matrimonial site and forwarded fake profiles of prospective brides and induced the de facto complainant to part with an amount of Rs.1,400/-. Though the allegations are serious, considering the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, I am of the view that further detention is not necessary. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, this application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(b) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such applications, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 44392

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMBECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JMUHAMMED RAMEES – AppellantVersusSTATE OF KERALA, CYBER POLICE STATION, WAYANAD – RespondentBAIL APPL. NO. 9423 OF 2025 | Crime No. 20/2025

Custody-based assessment can justify bail in serious cybercrime offences when risks of tampering are mitigated by strict conditions.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
MUHAMMED RAMEES – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, CYBER POLICE STATION, WAYANAD – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 9423 OF 2025 | Crime No. 20/2025