Kerala High Court
Jinto Paul vs State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
B.A.No.9383 of 2025 1
2025:KER:62028
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 9383 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1199/2025 OF Angamali Police Station, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 02.07.2025 IN CRMC NO.1782
OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT/RENT CONTROL
APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 & 3:
1 JINTO PAUL
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O PAULOSE K.V., KAVALAKKAL HOUSE, VENGOLA,
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683556
2 BASIL PAUL
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O PAULOSE K.V., KAVALAKKAL HOUSE, VENGOLA,
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683556
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.P.SATHEESAN, SR.
SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL)
SRI.P.M.MANASH
SMT.NESY A.R.
B.A.No.9383 of 2025 2
2025:KER:62028
RESPONDENTS/STATE & INVESTIGATING OFFICER:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, NH 47, ANGAMALY,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683572
* 3 SINI PAULOSE,
AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. SHIBI, CHULLI HOUSE,
MOONNAMPARAMBU, MOOKKANNUR, ERNAKULAM
* [ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18.08.2025
IN CRL.M.A.NO.1 OF 2025]
BY ADVS.
SRI.PRASANTH M.P., PP
SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.9383 of 2025 3
2025:KER:62028
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A.No.9383 of 2025
...................................................
Dated this the 18th day of August, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioners are accused 2 and 3 in Crime No.1199 of
2025 of Angamali Police Station, Ernakulam, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Though the petitioners mentioned
that they are accused 2 and 3, the learned Public Prosecutor
pointed out that petitioners are accused 2 and 4.
3. According to the prosecution, the accused had
promised to provide a family visa to the United Kingdom to the de
facto complainant and collected a total amount of Rs.25,75,800/-
during the period from 25.07.2024 to 29.11.2024 and thereafter
failed to provide the visa or return the amount and thereby the
accused committed the offences alleged.
2025:KER:62028
4. Heard Sri.K.P.Satheesan, the learned Senior Counsel
instructed by Sri.C.Y.Vinod Kumar, the learned Counsel for the
petitioners as well as Sri.George Sebastian, the learned Counsel for
the de facto complainant, apart from Sri.Prasanth M.P., the learned
Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the
petitioners have no involvement in the alleged crime and,
therefore, they may be granted anticipatory bail.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel
for the de facto complainant opposed the bail application and
submitted that custodial interrogation is necessary.
7. A reading of the statement of the de facto complainant
reveals that the second petitioner had directed her to approach the
Manager of the establishment by name "U.K.Xpress Solutions
Pvt.Ltd." of which petitioners were the Directors at the relevant
time. Subsequently, the said Manager used to interact with the de
facto complainant and directed them to transfer amounts into the
account provided by him. Believing the words of the Manager of
the company, the de facto complainant transferred a total amount
2025:KER:62028
of Rs.25,75,800/-, expecting a family visa. However, neither was
the visa provided nor was the amount returned to the de facto
complainant.
8. Though the statement of the de facto complainant
reveals that the amount was transferred through the account of
the first accused himself, the investigation conducted so far has
revealed that there was an understanding between the petitioners
and the first accused and based on that, the amounts received by
the first accused in his account was transferred to accused 2 and
4. It has also been identified that an agreement was even entered
into between the de facto complainant and accused 2 and 4. Since
the allegations are serious and the de facto complainant has lost
more than Rs.25 Lakhs expecting a family visa and she had
approached the petitioners as well as the aforesaid establishment
at the initial stage itself, I am of the view that petitioners cannot be
protected with an order of pre-arrest bail.
9. In a recent decision in P.Krishna Mohan Reddy V.
The State of Andhra Pradesh [2025 Live Law (SC) 598] the
2025:KER:62028
Supreme Court had observed that custodial interrogation is
qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect
who is well ensconced with a favourable order of pre-arrest bail. It
was also observed that success in interrogation will elude if the
suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by
a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. In fact,
the court went on to hold that insulating a person from arrest
would make his interrogation a mere ritual.
10. Having regard to the nature of allegations and also
since the first accused was acting as a Manager of the company in
which petitions were Directors and the de facto complainant
specifically alleged that she had been directed to approach the
Manager by the second petitioner, I am of the view that grant of
pre-arrest bail to the petitioners will prejudice the investigation.
11. However, if in case petitioners surrender before the
Investigating Officer on 25.08.2025 and if, after interrogation, the
Investigating Officer arrests the petitioners, then, they shall be
produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate without undue delay.
Further, if any bail application is filed by them, the same shall be
2025:KER:62028
considered at the earliest, in accordance with law, preferably on
the same day itself.
This bail application is dismissed with the above
observations.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
sp/18/08/2025
2025:KER:62028
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 9383/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1199/2025 OF
ANGAMALY POLICE STATION
Annexure A2 COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE
TRANSACTION DATED 09/07/24
Annexure A3 COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT SHOWING THE
REPAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT ON VARIOUS DATES
Annexure A4 COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RESIGNATION
DATED 04/06/24 ISSUED BY UK XPRESS PVT.
LTD.
Annexure A5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02/07/25 IN CRL
MC NO. 1782/25 OF THE HON'BLE SESSIONS
COURT, ERNAKULAM
