Kerala High Court

Syeda Mahina Fathima vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                                          2025:KER:10846



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

     MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 21ST MAGHA, 1946

                      BAIL APPL. NO. 1016 OF 2025

   CRIME NO.916/2024 OF Vadakkancherry Police Station, Palakkad


PETITIONER/S:

            SYEDA MAHINA FATHIMA
            AGED 50 YEARS
            7-1-638 TO 643, FLAT NO. 111, 1ST BHANU ENCLAVE, NEAR
            ESI METRO STATION, SANATH NAGAR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA
            STATE., PIN - 500018


            BY ADVS.
            ANTONY THARIAN
            THARIYACHAN M.T.



RESPONDENT/S:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
            PIN - 682031

    2       THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
            VADAKKENCHERRY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
            PIN - 678683

            BY ADV.
            NOUSHAD.K.A, SR PP


     THIS   BAIL    APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
10.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                              2025:KER:10846
BAIL APPL. NO.1016 OF 2025

                                    2
                    P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                 --------------------------------
                    B.A.No.1016 of 2025
                  -------------------------------
         Dated this the 10th day of February, 2025


                               ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

2. Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime

No.916/2024 of Vadakkancherry Police Station, Palakkad. The

above case is registered alleging offences punishable under

Sections 403, 406, 409, 415, 417, 420 and 465 r/w Section 34

of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case is that, petitioner

placed an order for cardamom and nutmeg worth

Rs.18,56,850/- and made the defacto complainant believe

that the price of goods had been deposited in the defacto

complainant's bank account and thereby causing the defacto

complainant to dispatch consignment. Meanwhile, the 2 nd

accused stood as an intermediary on a commission basis.

2025:KER:10846 BAIL APPL. NO.1016 OF 2025

Further, the delivery of goods had been taken by the

petitioner using fake ID cards and she failed to pay the proce

thereby alleging the commission of offence alleged.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the

Public Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that,

the petitioner placed an order for cardamon and black pepper

worth Rs.7,85,000/- in the company, where the defacto

complainant is the Managing Director. It is also submitted

that, the consignment delivered in pursuance thereto was of

inferior quality. Petitioner informed the defacto complainant

about the same and to take back the goods by the paying

expenses incurred to the petitioner. It is submitted that the

defcacto complainant failed to collect the defective goods

back, from the petitioner and offered a discounted price for

taking the goods. It is also submitted that, petitioner

instituted ac ivil suit for a permanant prohibitory injunction

against the defacto complainant as O.S No.77/20232 before

the Civil Court 2025:KER:10846 BAIL APPL. NO.1016 OF 2025

6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application. He submitted that the allegation against the

petitioner is serious.

7. This Court considered the contention of the

petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, this Court

released the 2nd accused on Anticipatory Bail as per order

dated 04.12.2024 in B.A No.8730/2024. Petitioner is the 1 st

accused. It seems that, the dispute is regrading the sale of

cardamom and nutmeg. The consideration is not paid is the

dispute. Whether it amounts to a criminal offence is a matter

to be investigated. I do not want to make any observation

about the same. But, considering the facts and circumstances

of the case, I think, the custodial interrogation of the

petitioner may not be necessary. There can be a direction to

the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer.

After interrogation, if arrest is recorded, there can be a

direction to release the petitioner on bail.

8. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that

the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble 2025:KER:10846 BAIL APPL. NO.1016 OF 2025

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 (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 2025:KER:10846 BAIL APPL. NO.1016 OF 2025

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 three weeks

from today and shall undergo interrogation.

2. After interrogation, if the Investigating

Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, she

shall be released on bail on executing a

bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty 2025:KER:10846 BAIL APPL. NO.1016 OF 2025

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 she is

accused, or suspected, of the commission of

which she is suspected.

2025:KER:10846 BAIL APPL. NO.1016 OF 2025

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