Kerala High Court
Jayaseelan vs State Of Kerala on 3 July, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2025:KER:48842
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 7334 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1199/2024 OF VALIYATHURA POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED
29.05.2025 IN CRMC NO.1254 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT &
SESSIONS COURT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PETITIONER:
JAYASEELAN,
AGED 51 YEARS,
S/O. PARAMESWARAN ACHARI, DEVI KRIPA,
PERINGATTUKUZHI, BENEDICT NAGAR,
NALANCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT T.C.NO.3/1385,
GOLDEN VIEW, LEKSHMI NAGAR, LNU-19, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 015.
BY ADV SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682 031.
SRI. NOUSHAD K. A. (PP)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl. No.7334 of 2025
2025:KER:48842
-2-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------------
Bail Appl. No.7334 of 2025
------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1199 of 2024 of Valiyathura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered for the offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. According to the prosecution, the accused had, with intent to deceive the de facto complainant offered a 10% profit if investment is made in Emirates Gold Souk Jewellery, and thereafter collected an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- apart from 270.800 grams of gold ornaments and failed to return the amount except for Rs.15,000/- paid every month for a period of one year and failed to repay the balance amount and thereby committed the offences alleged.
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 falsely arrayed as an accused and that he Bail Appl. No.7334 of 2025 2025:KER:48842 -3- has no involvement in the alleged crime.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that custodial interrogation is necessary.
7. Petitioner is alleged to have collected a large amount of money and gold ornaments and promised to repay the same with profit. However, after payment of Rs.15,000/- for a period of 12 months, he failed to repay the balance amount and thereby committed the offences.
8. Though the allegations are serious in nature, considering that the amount was collected in 2019 and for 12 months, a certain amount was paid by the petitioner, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation can be avoided, since prima facie, there is an element of civil dispute in the allegations. Of course, those are matters are to be identified during the course if investigation.
9. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 (5) SCC 1, it was held that while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of each case, and subject to the discretion of the court. Bail Appl. No.7334 of 2025
2025:KER:48842 -4-
10. In Ashok Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, [2024 SCC OnLine SC 274], it has been held that a mere assertion on the part of the State while opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial interrogation is required would not be sufficient and that the State would have to show or indicate more than prima facie case as to why custodial interrogation of the accused is required for the purpose of investigation.
11. In the instant case, the State has not been able to convince this Court that custodial interrogation is necessary. On a consideration of the circumstances arising in the case, this Court is of the view that though the allegations are serious in nature, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Further, having regard to the nature of the offence and the severity of punishment,this Court is of the view that petitioner is entitled to be released on pre-arrest bail.
Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:
(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 10.07.2025 and shall subject himself to interrogation.
(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, then, he 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 before the Investigating Officer.
(c) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall also co-operate with the investigation.
Bail Appl. No.7334 of 2025
2025:KER:48842 -5-
(d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.
(e) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.
(f) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.
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.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE ADS Bail Appl. No.7334 of 2025 2025:KER:48842 -6- APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 7334/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1199/2024 OF VALIYATHURA POLICE STATION.
Annexure-B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/05/2025 IN CRL.M.C.NO.1254/2025 OF THE COURT OF SESSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.