1. This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( for short 'BNSS').

2. The petitioner herein is the 8th accused in Crime No.682 of 2025 of Maradu Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 310(2) and 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Section 37(1) of the Arms Act.

3. The prosecution case is that, the accused no. 7, who came to know that the first informant, a businessman, had money with him, entered into a criminal conspiracy with the accused nos. 6 and 8 and, in pursuance of the said conspiracy, made the first informant to believe that if money is deposited in a trading profit fund in companies known to accused no. 7, he would get double the amount through the bank. Thereafter, accused no. 7 sent accused no. 6 to the first informant to ensure that the money was indeed with the first informant. After ensuring that the first informant was in possession of huge amount, on 29.09.2025, the accused nos. 1 and 6 to 9 again conspired together to rob the said money from the first informant. Accordingly, on 08.10.2025, at the instructions of the accused no. 7, the first informant was called to Empire Plaza Hotel. The accused nos. 1, 2 and 6 also came to the said hotel in a car arranged by the accused no. 9, a friend of the accused no. 7 and they talked with the first informant, and thereafter accused nos. 1, 2, 6 and the first informant together came to the National Steel Company of the first informant. The first informant then sent accused nos. 1 and 2 along with two of his staff members to count Rs. 81/- lakh. While the money was being counted, the accused nos. 3, 4, and 5, armed with sword sticks and a gun, came to the office of the first informant, threatened him by placing the sword stick on his chest, and entered the room in which the money was kept by breaking the glass. They then threatened the staff of the first informant by showing the gun. After the staff members left the room, accused nos. 3, 4 and 5 left the place with the bags containing Rs. 81/- lakh. Accused nos. 1 and 2 also fled from the scene. Thereafter, the accused nos. 2 and 3 went to the house of the accused no. 11, and the accused no. 3 handed over the pistol and pellets used for committing the offences to the accused no. 10, who concealed the pistol and pellets in his wife’s house. Subsequently, the accused nos. 3, 10 and 11 concealed a bag containing Rs. 19,94,500/- in the house of Assi. Thereafter, the accused nos. 3, 10 and 11 parked the car used for committing the crime behind Valapad Church and helped accused no. 3 to escape by taking him to the railway station in a taxi. Thus, the accused allegedly committed the above offences.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the allegation levelled against her. According to the petitioner, even if the case of the prosecution is believed as such, there is no allegation that the 8th accused took part in the alleged robbery. Moreover, in the investigation so far conducted, apart from some phone calls, no convincing materials have been collected to show that the petitioner was also a party to the conspiracy hatched in the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that, as the investigation in the case has progressed substantially, further judicial incarceration of the petitioner would serve no purpose and some leniency has to be shown in the matter of bail in the case of the petitioner, considering the fact that she is a lady and no specific overt acts are attributed against her in the commission of the principle act, which led to the registration of the present case.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application by highlighting the stake of the amount allegedly robbed off. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that sufficient materials are already collected to prove the complicity of the petitioner in the conspiracy hatched in the case and hence the petitioner deserves no leniency in the matter of bail.

7. It is a well accepted principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement [(2020) 13 SCC 791] 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.

8. 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 under Art.21 of our Constitution.”

9. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 KHC 6426], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:

                  “53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well - settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non - grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception".”

10. Keeping in mind the above principle while reverting to the present case, it is gatherable that the accusation against the petitioner is prima facie well founded. As evident from the records, the prosecution is mainly relying on the frequent phone calls made between the petitioner and the 1st accused, the main perpetrator of this offence to prove the complicity of the petitioner in this case. Although the frequent phone call alone is not a reason to enter into an automatic inference that the petitioner was also party to the conspiracy hatched the same assumes some importance while determining the question whether a conspiracy was hatched in this case. Anyhow, the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged conspiracy can be conclusively determined only after a full-fledged trial, and the same can be relegated to that stage.

11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was arrested in this case on 09.10.2025, and since then she has been under judicial custody. The investigation in this case appears to have crossed its major and crucial stage and is on the verge of completion. Although the major portion of money is recovered, the remaining portion of the money is yet to be recovered. However, I am at a loss to understand how the retention of the petitioner in the judicial custody will facilitate the recovery of the remaining amount which was allegedly robbed. The petitioner has been under custody for the last 82 days. From the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor, it is discernible that she was granted police custody and interrogated thoroughly. Therefore, the retention of the petitioner in judicial custody probably may not serve the recovery of the remaining amount. Moreover, the presence and the cooperation of the petitioner in the ongoing probe can be well ensured by imposing stringent conditions in the bail order. Likewise, while considering the present application, the fact that the accused no. 1, who is the main perpetrator of the offence, is already granted bail also cannot be overlooked. Hence, having regard to the duration of the detention undergone by the petitioner and the present stage of the investigation, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on the following conditions:

                  1. The petitioner shall be released on bail on her 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 jurisdictional Court.

                  2. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on alternate Mondays between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 p.m for three months or till final report is filed, whichever occurs first.

                  3. The petitioner shall surrender her passport within seven days of her release from the jail. If she has no passport, she shall file an affidavit to that effect.

                  4. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the investigating officer.

                  5. The petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

                  6. The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

                  7. It is made clear that if any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the prosecution is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail in accordance with law.