Kerala High Court
Santhosh Abraham Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 7 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
B.A.No.1285 of 2025
1
2025:KER:10329
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 18TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1285 OF 2025
CRIME NO.312/2024 OF ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION, Ernakulam
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2:
1 SANTHOSH ABRAHAM THOMAS
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O- P A THOMAS, 8-B, ANTA MARVEL APARTMENTS,
AROOR BYE PASS ROAD, KANNADIKADU ROAD, VYTILLA,
MARADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682304
2 RAGHI ISSAC
AGED 43 YEARS
D/O- P T ISSAC, POTTACKATTIL HOUSE,
CHOTTANIKKARA P.O, KANAYANNUR, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682312
BY ADV T.S.SARATH
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION
ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM RURAL,
PIN - 682026
BY ADV.SRI.G.SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.1285 of 2025
2
2025:KER:10329
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.1285 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 07th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.
312/2024 of Elamakkara Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable
under Sections 406 & 420 r/w 34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused own
SACHI Staffing Solutions operating at Edappally,
Changampuzha Park. It is alleged that the accused promised
the victim in this case working visa in care homes in United
Kingdom, and collected huge amount. It is submitted that the
visa was not provided and the amount was also not returned.
Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said
offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
2025:KER:10329
petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that,
this Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners for the
same set of facts as evident by Annexure-A3 order. The
counsel submitted that the accused has not committed the
offences as alleged.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that there are six
other cases registered against the petitioners with the same set
of allegations.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. This Court perused
Annexure-A3 order. The petitioners were in custody in
connection with the same set of allegations in another case for
about 45 days. The indefinite incarceration of the petitioners
may not be necessary. The petitioners can be directed to
surrender before the Investigating Officer and after
interrogation, if the arrest of the petitioners are recorded, there
can be a direction to release the petitioners on bail.
2025:KER:10329
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 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
2025:KER:10329
(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.
11. 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 petitioners shall
appear before the Investigating Officer
within two weeks from today and shall
undergo interrogation.
2. After interrogation, if the
2025:KER:10329
Investigating Officer propose to arrest the
petitioners, they shall be released on bail on
executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two
solvent sureties each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the arresting officer
concerned.
3. The petitioners shall appear
before the Investigating Officer for
interrogation as and when required. The
petitioners 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 them
from disclosing such facts to the Court or to
any police officer.
4. Petitioners shall not leave
India without permission of the jurisdictional
2025:KER:10329
Court.
5. Petitioners shall not commit
an offence similar to the offence of which
they are accused, or suspected, of the
commission of which they are 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
petitioners even while the petitioners are 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 petitioners,
the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in
accordance to law, even though the bail is
2025:KER:10329
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
DM
