Kerala High Court
Bibin Babu vs State Of Kerala on 22 April, 2025
2025:KER:32826
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 2ND VAISAKHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 4777 OF 2025
CRIME NO.137/2025 OF Hill Palace Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONER:
BIBIN BABU,
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O BABU, KANDATHIL HOUSE, MUNDUR, PALAKKAD, PIN -
678592
BY ADV AMIN ALI ASHRAF
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
BY ADV.RENJITH GEORGE, SR.P.P.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Bail Appln. No. 4777 of 2025 -2-
2025:KER:32826
ORDER
Dated this the 22nd day of April, 2025
This Bail Application is filed under S.482 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ( for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime
No.137/2025 of Hill Palace Police Station, Ernakulam registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').
3. The prosecution case is that, during the period in
between 26.12.2024 and 31.12.2024 while working as a
receptionist in the hotel of the defacto complainant, the accused by
giving his google pay scanner to the customers misappropriated a
total sum of Rs.32,250/-. Thus the accused committed the above
offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged and a false case is
foisted against him.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that if this
Court inclines to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner strict
2025:KER:32826
conditions may be incorporated so as to assure the cooperation of
the petitioner for the purpose of completion of the investigation.
7. 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 [(2020) 13
SCC 791] after considering the earlier judgments on the point,
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. Recently the Apex Court in Siddharth v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Another [2021 (5) KHC 353] considered the point
in detail. The relevant paragraph of the above judgment is
extracted hereunder:
"12. We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect
of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an
accused during investigation arises when custodial
investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or
where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or
accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made
because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be
made. A distinction must be made between the existence of
the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it.
2025:KER:32826
(Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others (1994 KHC 189 :
1994 (4) SCC 260 : 1994 (1) KLT 919 : 1994 (2) KLJ 97 : AIR
1994 SC 1349: 1994 CriLJ 1981)) If arrest is made routine, it
can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self -
esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason
to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons
and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation
we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the
officer to arrest the accused."
9. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation
[2023 KHC 6961], the Apex Court observed that even if the
allegation is one of grave economic offences, it is not a rule that
bail should be denied in every case.
10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decisions
and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail
Application is allowed with the following directions:
1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo
interrogation.
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes
to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on
executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
2025:KER:32826
only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to
the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned.
3. The 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 him or 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.
5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which he is accused or 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. It is made clear that if any of the above conditions are
violated by the petitioner, the prosecution and the victim
2025:KER:32826
are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court for
cancellation of bail in accordance with law.
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S.,
JUDGE
sbk/-
