Kerala High Court
Bindu P.K vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:10829
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. 1248 OF 2025
CRIME NO.9/2025 OF BALUSSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:
BINDU P.K.
AGED 54 YEARS, W/O. HARIDASAN, RESIDING AT
UTHRADAM HOUSE, IYYAD P.O., UNNIKULAM,
KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673 574.
BY ADVS.
MITHUN P.
MERIN THOMAS
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT (STATE) & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682 031.
BY ADV
NOUSHAD K.A, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:10829
B.A No.1248 of 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.1248 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.9
of 2025 of Balussery Police Station, Kozhikode. The above
case is registered against the petitioner and others
alleging offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
3. The prosecution case is that, the defacto
complainant in the case deposited huge amount at
Unnikulam Vanitha Co-operative Society wherein the
accused was working as Secretary. But, the President,
Secretary in charge and Members of Director Board
cheated the defacto complainant by not returning the
2025:KER:10829
deposited amount with interest. 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 petitioner was only the Secretary of the Society
and she has not committed any offence. It is also
submitted that the amount is not returned because of the
financial difficulty of the Society. The counsel submitted
that the petitioner is ready to abide any condition
imposed by this Court, if this Court grant her bail. It is
also submitted by the petitioner that, the petitioner was
on leave at the relevant time because she met with an
accident.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that, the
petitioner is involved in 12 other cases. But, the counsel
for the petitioner submitted that, in all those cases the
2025:KER:10829
petitioner was released on bail.
7. This Court considered the contentions of
the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The petitioner
was in custody in some of the cases and in some cases,
she was released on anticipatory bail. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the case and considering the
fact that it is a monetary dispute, I think, bail can be
granted to the petitioner after imposing stringent
conditions. But, I make it clear that, the Investigating
Officer is free to investigate the matter, in accordance
with law, untrammeled by any observation in this order.
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
2025:KER:10829
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 Officer has no reason to believe
2025:KER:10829
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
decisions 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 and shall undergo
interrogation.
2025:KER:10829
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 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.
2025:KER:10829
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.
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].
2025:KER:10829
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 the 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
AMR
