Kerala High Court
Baby Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:10847
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. 1331 OF 2025
CRIME NO.674/2024 OF Aralam Police Station, Kannur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.01.2025 IN CRMC NO.2083
OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY
PETITIONER/S:
BABY THOMAS
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O THOMAS, KASAMKATTIL HOUSE, KEEZHPALLY PO, IRITTY,
KANNUR, PIN - 670704
BY ADVS.
K C MOHAMED RASHID
ABIN BENNY
DENNISE JACOB SAVY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ARALAM POLICE STATION, KEEZHPALLY, KANNUR, PIN - 670704
3 SASIDHARAN O.T
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O GOVINDAN, LEENA NIVAS, VAYANNOOR, VEKKALAM KANNUR,
PIN - 670650
BY ADV.
HRITHWIK.CS, SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1324/2025, 1327/2025 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:10847
B.A.Nos.1331, 1324, 1327,
1329 & 1330 of 2025
2
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. 1324 OF 2025
CRIME NO.670/2024 OF Aralam Police Station, Kannur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.01.2025 IN CRMC NO.2087
OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY
PETITIONER/S:
BABY THOMAS
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O THOMAS, KASAMKATTIL HOUSE, KEEZHPALLY PO, IRITTY,
KANNUR, PIN - 670704
BY ADVS.
K C MOHAMED RASHID
ABIN BENNY
DENNISE JACOB SAVY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ARALAM POLICE STATION, KEEZHPALLY, KANNUR, PIN - 670704
3 PANKAJAVALLI K
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O JAYARAJAN, KUNHIKKELOTH HOUSE, AAVATTI, CHAVASSERI,
KANNUR CITY, KANNUR, PIN - 670702
BY ADV.
2025:KER:10847
B.A.Nos.1331, 1324, 1327,
1329 & 1330 of 2025
3
BY ADV.
HRITHWIK.C.S, SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1331/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:10847
B.A.Nos.1331, 1324, 1327,
1329 & 1330 of 2025
4
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. 1327 OF 2025
CRIME NO.671/2024 OF Aralam Police Station, Kannur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.01.2025 IN CRMC NO.2085
OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY
PETITIONER/S:
BABY THOMAS
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O THOMAS, KASAMKATTIL HOUSE, KEEZHPALLY PO, IRITTY,
KANNUR, PIN - 670704
BY ADVS.
K C MOHAMED RASHID
ABIN BENNY
DENNISE JACOB SAVY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ARALAM POLICE STATION, KEEZHPALLY, KANNUR, PIN - 670704
3 LIJU
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O KURIAKOSE, ATHIMATTATHIL HOUSE, KEEZHPALLY P.O,
ARALAM, KANNUR, PIN - 670704
2025:KER:10847
B.A.Nos.1331, 1324, 1327,
1329 & 1330 of 2025
5
BY ADV.
NOUSHAD.K.A, SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1331/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:10847
B.A.Nos.1331, 1324, 1327,
1329 & 1330 of 2025
6
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. 1329 OF 2025
CRIME NO.672/2024 OF Aralam Police Station, Kannur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.01.2025 IN CRMC NO.2082
OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY
PETITIONER/S:
BABY THOMAS
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O THOMAS, KASAMKATTIL HOUSE, KEEZHPALLY PO, IRITTY,
KANNUR, PIN - 670704
BY ADVS.
K C MOHAMED RASHID
ABIN BENNY
DENNISE JACOB SAVY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ARALAM POLICE STATION, KEEZHPALLY, KANNUR, PIN - 670704
3 RAMAKRISHNAN P.K
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O KUNJIKANNAN NAMBIAR, RAMANILAYAM HOUSE, KALARIKKAD,
ARALAM, KANNUR, PIN - 670704
2025:KER:10847
B.A.Nos.1331, 1324, 1327,
1329 & 1330 of 2025
7
BY ADV.
NOUSHAD.K.A, SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1331/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:10847
B.A.Nos.1331, 1324, 1327,
1329 & 1330 of 2025
8
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. 1330 OF 2025
CRIME NO.673/2024 OF Aralam Police Station, Kannur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.01.2025 IN CRMC NO.2084
OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY
PETITIONER/S:
BABY THOMAS
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O THOMAS, KASAMKATTIL HOUSE, KEEZHPALLY PO, IRITTY,
KANNUR, PIN - 670704
BY ADVS.
K C MOHAMED RASHID
ABIN BENNY
DENNISE JACOB SAVY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ARALAM POLICE STATION, KEEZHPALLY, KANNUR, PIN - 670704
3 SREEDHARAN M
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O NARAYANAN, SREENILAYAM HOUSE, KEEZHPALLY P.O,
KALARIKKAD, ARALAM, KANNUR, PIN - 670704
2025:KER:10847
B.A.Nos.1331, 1324, 1327,
1329 & 1330 of 2025
9
BY ADV.
NOUSHAD.K.A, SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1331/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:10847
B.A.Nos.1331, 1324, 1327,
1329 & 1330 of 2025
10
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.Nos.1331, 1324, 1327,
1329 & 1330 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2025
COMMON ORDER
These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). These Bail
Applications are connected and therefore, I am disposing of
these cases by a common order.
2. Petitioner in these cases are one and the
same. Petitioner was the former President of Iritty Marketing
and Agricultural Co-operative Society (for short Society).
Crime Nos.670/2024, 671/2024, 672/2024, 673/2024 and
674/2024 is registered by the Aralam Police, against the
petitioner and others alleging offences interalia under
Sections 318(4), 316(5) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
2025:KER:10847
B.A.Nos.1331, 1324, 1327,
1329 & 1330 of 2025
3. The prosecution case is that, the defacto
complainant in these cases, deposited a huge amount in the
Society, in which the accused offered huge interest. But, the
deposited amount is not disbursed and the interest also is not
received. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the
offence. In two other cases, there is allegation to the effect
that the defcato complainants were forced to deposit the
amount offering job to their relatives.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that,
it is an admitted fact that, defacto complainants deposited
amount in the Society. The counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the Society is facing some financial difficulty
and because of the same, the amount is not disbursed. The
counsel submitted that, now the petitioner is not the
President. The counsel submitted that, there is no allegation
to the prosecution that petitioner misappropriated the
amount deposited in the Society. As far as the job offer from
2025:KER:10847
B.A.Nos.1331, 1324, 1327,
1329 & 1330 of 2025
the accused, it is submitted that the relatives of the defacto
complainants in those cases were already joined in the
service.
6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. He submitted that huge amount is deposited by
the depositors relying the words of the accused that he will
pay huge interest. The job offered was temporary in nature.
7. This Court considered the contention of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The amount is deposited
in a Co-operative Society. It is an admitted fact that the
amount is deposited by the defacto complainant as Fixed
Deposits. It is also an admitted fact that the amount
deposited is not disbursed to the defacto complainants. In
such circumstances, the normal remedy of the defacto
complainant is to file an Arbitration case as per the Co-
operative Societies Act. Whether any criminal offence is made
out, in such circumstances, is a matter to be investigated. I
do not want to make any observation about the same. The
petitioner is the former President of the Society. He is aged
2025:KER:10847
B.A.Nos.1331, 1324, 1327,
1329 & 1330 of 2025
60 years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I think the petitioner can be directed to appear before
the Investigating Officer. After interrogation, if arrest is
recorded, there can be a direction to the Investigating Officer
to release the petitioner on bail after imposing stringent
conditions,
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:
2025:KER:10847
B.A.Nos.1331, 1324, 1327,
1329 & 1330 of 2025
"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 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.
2025:KER:10847
B.A.Nos.1331, 1324, 1327,
1329 & 1330 of 2025
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 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
2025:KER:10847
B.A.Nos.1331, 1324, 1327,
1329 & 1330 of 2025
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 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:10847
B.A.Nos.1331, 1324, 1327,
1329 & 1330 of 2025
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
SSG
