IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 1042 OF 2025 CRIME NO.697/2024 OF VADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD PETITIONERS:

1 EBY AGED 35 YEARS, S/O JOY KURYAKOSE, POTTAKKAL HOUSE, KUTTAMPUZHA, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 686 681.

2 ANJU MARIA THOMAS AGED 31 YEARS, W/O JOY KURYAKOSE, POTTAKKAL HOUSE, KUTTAMPUZHA, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM,, PIN – 686 681.

BY ADVS.

V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH RALPH RETI JOHN VISHNU CHANDRAN GIRIDHAR KRISHNA KUMAR GEETHU T.A.

MARY GREESHMA LIZ JOHNY KRISHNAPRIYA SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031.

BY ADV HRITHWIK C.S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------

B.A.No.1042 of 2025 -------------------------------

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2025

O R D E R

This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.697 of 2024 of Vedakkancherry Police Station, Palakkad. The above case is registered against the petitioners and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), 1860.

3. The prosecution case is that by offering visa, the accused obtained money from different persons. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

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

5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 4^th accused is already released on bail under Section 482 BNSS. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants them bail.

6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the Final Report is already filed. The Public Prosecutor submitted that there is yet another case registered against the petitioners with similar allegation.

7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. The petitioners are in custody from 27.12.2024. The Final Report is already filed. In such circumstances, further custody of the petitioners are not necessary. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think petitioners can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.

8. 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.

9. 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 gran