Kerala High Court
Shyam Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 3 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
B.A.No. 772 of 2025
1
2025:KER:8474
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 14TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 772 OF 2025
CRIME NO.379/2024 OF Mannarkkad Police Station, Palakkad
PETITIONER(S)/2ND ACCUSED:
SHYAM KUMAR
AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. KAMALAKSHAN, THARAKANDATHIL
HOUSE, PEUMBALA P.O., KASARGODU, PIN - 671 317
BY ADV SHABU SREEDHARAN
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031
BY ADV.
SRI. HRITHWICK C.S, SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No. 772 of 2025
2
2025:KER:8474
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No. 772 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 03rd day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime
No.379/2024 of Mannarkkad Police Station, Palakkad. The
above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences
punishable under Sections 420 & 406 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the defacto
complainant and one Deepu were working together at the
Alshifa Hospital, Perinthalmanna for 1 ½ years and at that time,
the said Deepu told him that the 1 st accused is the friend of the
relative of Deepu's father and she through the 2 nd accused
arranges job in Bahrain and that Deepu already paid an amount
for such job. Deepu gave the mobile number of the 1 st accused
and told him to contact her if he wants such job. Accordingly,
2025:KER:8474
he contacted the 1st accused and as told by her, he sent Rs. 1
lakh on 21.11.2023 and Rs. 40,000/- on 22.11.2023 to the
account of the 2nd accused. Without arranging such job and
without returning the amount, the 2nd accused/petitioner herein
and the 1st accused committed the above said offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is not involved in this case. The counsel also
submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if
this Court grant him bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that there is
no criminal antecedents to the petitioner.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the 1 st
accused is already released on bail as per order dated
19.12.2024 in BA No.10098/2024. If that be the case, I think,
the petitioner also can be released on bail after imposing
stringent conditions.
2025:KER:8474
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.
9. 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
2025:KER:8474
power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it.
(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."
10. 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 offence, it
is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case.
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. The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer within two weeks from today
2025:KER:8474
and shall undergo interrogation.
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating
Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he 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 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 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, of the commission of which he is
2025:KER:8474
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. If any of the above conditions are violated
by the petitioner the jurisdictional Court can cancel
the bail in accordance to law, even though this bail
is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the
victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional
Court to cancel the bail, if any of the above
conditions are violated.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
nvj
