Kerala High Court
Vidya Sagar vs State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2025:KER:62429
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. 9203 OF 2025
CRIME NO.492/2025 OF Vithura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN FIR NO.492 OF 2025 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III (FOREST OFFENCES),
NEDUMANGAD
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:
VIDYA SAGAR
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O SHANMUGHAN PILLAI, AISWARYA, CHINNAPPAN PARA,
VITHURA .P.O, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN -
695551
BY ADV SRI.T.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
BY ADV.SRI. PRASANTH M.P., PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:62429
BAIL APPL. NO. 9203 OF 2025
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A.No.9203 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. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.492 of 2025 of
Vidura Police Station, Thiruvanathpuram, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
3. According to the prosecution, the accused, who is the
president of Nedumangad Taluk Motor Transport CO-operative Society-
Ltd (NETTCOS) along with the other accused, collected an amount of Rs
14,35,000/- on various days, promising to provide a high rate of interest
and return the amount on maturity. Thereafter, they failed to disburse
the interest or return the amount and thereby committed the offences
alleged.
2025:KER:62429
BAIL APPL. NO. 9203 OF 2025
4. Heard Sri.T.K.Ananda krishnan, the learned Counsel for the
petitioner as well as Sri.Prasanth M.P., the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
petitioner has been falsely arrayed as an accused and that he has no
involvement in the alleged crime and, therefore, he may be granted
anticipatory bail.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application
and submitted that custodial interrogation is necessary.
7. Petitioner is a practicing advocate who is also acting as the
President of a society. The society is alleged to have collected large
amounts of money from the public and thereafter went into financial
difficulties and has become unable to repay the amounts.
8. Since the offences alleged against the petitioner require
either a dishonest intention from the very beginning or a fraudulent or
dishonest motive, I am of the view that those are matters to be
identified during investigation. There are prima facie no serious
allegations of misappropriation against the petitioner. In such
circumstances no purpose would be scared by any custodial
2025:KER:62429
BAIL APPL. NO. 9203 OF 2025
interrogation. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioner can be
protected with an order of pre-arrest bail, subject to conditions.
9. In Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and
Another, 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.
10. In Ashok Kumar v. State of 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.
2025:KER:62429
BAIL APPL. NO. 9203 OF 2025
11. In the instant case, the prosecution has not been able to
convince this Court of the necessity of custodial interrogation.
Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following
conditions:
(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on
27.08.2025 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.
(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.
2025:KER:62429
BAIL APPL. NO. 9203 OF 2025
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
mus
2025:KER:62429
BAIL APPL. NO. 9203 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 9203/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO
492/2025 OF VITHURA POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
ANNEXURE 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE
