SAFEER RAHMAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the accused nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.220 of 2020 of Tirur Police Station registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 394 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code. The crime has been registered based on a complaint of one Mr.Abdul Jaleel on 14.03.2020 that, on 10.03.2020 while he along with a female colleague were discussing official work while sitting inside his car parked on the road side, the accused trespassed into the car and forcefully took custody of their laptop and Rs.8,000/- along with mobile phone and wrist watches. The accused was also alleged to have taken photographs of the de facto complainant and his female friend. The accused forced the de facto complainant to withdraw Rs.20,000/- using his ATM Card and snatched away the money. The further allegation is that, subsequently by threatening that they will post the photographs taken by them in the social media, the accused collected an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- from the de facto complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that even though the incident is alleged to have happened on 10.03.2020, the complaint was laid much later, which is indicative of the falsity of the complaint.

(2.) I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost complete and the offence committed is of a heinous nature.

(3.) The well accepted principle of bail being the rule and jail the exception, has been reiterated by the Honourable Supreme Court time and again. [See Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India [2018 (11) SCC 1 and P.Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement [AIR 2019 SC 5272].