Kerala High Court
Vineeth Menon vs State Of Kerala on 6 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BA No.418 of 2025
1
2025:KER:9901
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 17TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 418 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1174/2024 OF MUNNAR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
VINEETH MENON
AGED 44 YEARS, S/O MENON T.M, KALOOR
RESIDENCE, 4C, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682017
BY ADV SREELAKSHMI SABU
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SRI. NOUSHAD K.A., SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BA No.418 of 2025
2
2025:KER:9901
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
BA No.418 of 2025
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 06th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime
No.1174/2024 of Munnar Police Station, Idukki. The
above case is registered against the petitioner
alleging offence punishable under Section 14(c) & 7
of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner
is running a home stay named Rumble in Jungle at
Munipara. It is alleged that the petitioner without
obtaining the necessary license or permits from the
authorities was running the home stay and the
2025:KER:9901
petitioner failed to maintain the records as required
under the law. It is also alleged that 12 Israeli
citizens came to the home stay and the same was
not informed to the local police as per the provisions
of Foreigners Act. Hence, it is alleged that the
accused committed the offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the allegation against the petitioner is not
correct. It is submitted that the foreigners came to
the home stay only to cook food for them and they
didn't stayed there. The counsel submitted that the
petitioner has not commited any offence. The
counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready to
abide any conditions imposed by this Court, if this
Court grants him bail.
2025:KER:9901
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that,
originally Crime No.1173/2024 was registered against
the petitioner alleging offences punishable under
Section 75 and 351 of BNS. At that time, the police
came to know that the foreigners stayed without
informing the police. Accordingly, the present crime
is registered.
7. This Court considered the contentions of
the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true
that the allegations against the petitioner is serious.
But, the maximum punishment that can be imposed
for the offences alleged are below 7 years. No
criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioner
except the above two cases mentioned. The Apex
Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and
Another [2014 (8) SCC 273] observed that, even
2025:KER:9901
while considering an application for anticipatory bail,
the court should take a lenient view if the
punishment that can be imposed is only up to 7
years. It will be better to extract the relevant portion
of the above judgment:
"7. xxxxxxxxx
7.1. From a plain reading of the
aforesaid provision, it is evident that all
person accused of an offence punishable
with imprisonment for a term which may
be less than seven years or which may
extend to seven years with or without
fine, cannot be arrested by the police
officer only on his satisfaction that such
person had committed the offence
punishable as aforesaid. A police officer
before arrest, in such cases has to be
further satisfied that such arrest is
necessary to prevent such person from
committing any further offence; or for
proper investigation of the case, or to
prevent the accused from causing the
evidence of the offence to disappear; or
tampering with such evidence in any
2025:KER:9901
manner; or to prevent such person from
making any inducement, threat or
promise to a witness so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the
court or the police officer, or unless such
accused person is arrested, his
conclusions, which one may reach based
on facts.
7.2. The law mandates the police
officer to state the facts and record the
reasons in writing which led him to come
to a conclusion covered by any of the
provisions aforesaid, while making such
arrest. The law further requires the
police officers to record the reasons in
writing for not making the arrest.
7.3. In pith and core, the police
officer before arrest must put a question
to himself, why arrest? Is it really
required? What purpose it will serve?
What object it will achieve? It is only
after these questions are addressed and
one or the other conditions as
enumerated above is satisfied, the
power of arrest needs to be exercised. In
fine, before arrest first the police officers
should have reason to believe on the
2025:KER:9901
basis of information and material that
the accused has committed the offence.
Apart from this, the police officer has to
be satisfied further that the arrest is
necessary for one or the more purposes,
envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) of
clause (1) of Section 41 CrPC."
8. Keeping in mind the above dictum laid
down by the Apex Court, I think, custodial
interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary
in the facts and circumstances of the case. The
petitioner can be released on bail after imposing
stringent conditions.
9. 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
2025:KER:9901
the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure
that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair
trial.
10. 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. (Joginder Kumar v.
State of UP and Others (1994 KHC 189: (1994) 4
SCC 260: 1994 (1) KLT 919: 1994 (2) KLJ 97: AIR
2025:KER:9901
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."
11. 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
decisions and considering the facts and
circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is
allowed with the following conditions:
1. The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer within two weeks
2025:KER:9901
from today 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
2025:KER:9901
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 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
2025:KER:9901
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
nvj JUDGE
