Kerala High Court
Rahila Banu M vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3003 OF 2024
CRIME NO.98/2024 OF NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
RAHILA BANU M,
AGED 36 YEARS
W/O WASEEM T, AMBALAPARAMBATH (H) VANIMEL P.O
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673506
BY ADV. K.REEHA KHADER
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANTS:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.3003 of 2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
B.A. No. 3003 of 2024
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal
Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
2. Petitioner is one of the accused in Crime No.
98/2024 of Nadakkavu Police Station. The above case is
registered inter alia under Section 420 IPC and under the
provisions of BUDS Act.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused in this case
induced the complainant to deposit huge amount in the
accused Company and the amount is not released after the
period of deposit. Hence it is alleged that the accused
deceitfully cheated the defacto complainant and thereby
committed the offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant
bail to the petitioner. The counsel submitted that the
petitioner is not involved in this case and there is no serious
allegation against the petitioner. It is also submitted that
the 1st accused in this case is released on bail. Petitioner is
the 2nd accused and the wife of the 1 st accused. She is only
a sleeping partner of the Company is the submission. It is
also submitted that, she has only a share of 2% of the total
shares of the alleged institution. It is further submitted that
the institution is settling the matter with the customers.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed
the bail application and submitted that serious allegations
are there against the petitioner.
7. When this Bail application came up for
consideration, this Court granted interim bail to the
petitioner. The petitioner surrendered before the
Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer granted
interim bail to the petitioner as directed by this Court. The
1st accused is already released on bail. The main allegation
against the accused is that there is misappropriation of fund
by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the accused are
trying to settle the issue also. Considering the facts and
circumstances of this case, I think this bail application can
be allowed 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.
Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision
and considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:
1. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo
interrogation;
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer
proposes to arrest the petitioner, she shall be
released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of
Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two
solvent sureties each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the officer concerned;
3. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Officer for interrogation as and when required. 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 any police officer;
4. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of
the jurisdictional Court; Petitioner shall surrender
her passport and if she is not having a passport, an
affidavit to that effect shall be filed.
5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the
commission of which she is suspected;
6. Needless to mention, it would be well within the
powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the
matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the
information, if any given by the petitioner even
while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v.
State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC
663].
7. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Officer on all Saturdays at 10 A.M till final report is
filed.
8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the
petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail
in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted
by this Court.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
DM
