Kerala High Court
Devassy vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 981 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:10889
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. 981 OF 2025
CRIME NO.865/2024 OF Pazhayannur Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMC NO.1796 OF 2024
OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR
PETITIONER/S:
DEVASSY
AGED 76 YEARS
S/O.CHACKO, KUTTIKKATTU HOUSE, ELANADU P.O,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680586
BY ADVS.
ARJUN RAGHAVAN
POOJA PANKAJ
T.R.HARIKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
SRI.HRITHWIK CS, SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 981 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:10889
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A. No. 981 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. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.
865/2024 of Pazhayannur Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable
under Secs. 406, 420, r/w 34 IPC.
3. The petitioner was the President of the
Pazhayannur Block Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. No.
880, which was functioning at Thrissur District. The
prosecution allegation is that on 20.05.2024, the defacto
complainant deposited an amount of Rs.5 lakhs at
Pazhayannur Block Marketing Co-operative Society and when
the defacto complainant demanded to return the deposit
2025:KER:10889
amount, the accused returned only an amount of
Rs.2,10,000/-. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed
the offences.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
even if the entire allegations are accepted, it is only a
monetary dispute and no criminal offence is made out. The
counsel submitted that if the fixed deposit amount is not
returned, the defacto complainant's remedy is to file an
arbitration case. No criminal offence is made out. The Public
Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public
Prosecutor submitted that there are five other cases with
similar allegation against the petitioner.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is an admitted fact
that the defacto complainant deposited an amount of
Rs.5,00,000/-. It is also an admitted fact that an amount of
2025:KER:10889
Rs.2,10,000/- is returned to the defacto complainant and the
balance is not paid. Hence, the case is registered. In such
situation, whether the ingredients of sec. 406 and 420 IPC is
made out, is a matter to be investigated. I do not want to
make any observation about the same. But, considering the
facts and circumstances of this case and also considering the
fact that the petitioner is the former President and aged 76
years, I think the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is
not necessary. The petitioner can be directed to surrender
before the investigating officer and after interrogation, if
arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to release the
petitioner on bail.
7. 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
2025:KER:10889
bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure
that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.
8. 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 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."
2025:KER:10889
9. 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.
10. 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
2025:KER:10889
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 he
2025:KER:10889
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].
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
2025:KER:10889
of the above conditions are violated.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
