Kerala High Court
K Babu vs State Of Kerala on 12 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:11713
Bail Appl. Nos.1471, 1428 & 1517 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 23RD MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1471 OF 2025
CRIME NO.195/2015 OF Cumbummettu Police Station, Idukki
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl.
NO.10851 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 K. SIRAJUDEEN
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O K.KAMALUDEEN , 76/NEW 12, KALLAKKARAN
STREET, CUMBUM, KAMBAM (M), THENI, TAMIL NADU,
PIN - 625516
2 SYED RAFIA MEER MOHAMED
AGED 62 YEARS
W/O MEER MOHAMED, NO.20/37 WARD 15 SUNGATHERU,
CUMBUM, UTHAMAPALAYAM, KAMBAM (M) CUMBUM, THENI,
TAMIL NADU, PIN - 625516
3 HAJAMOHAIDEEN KAMAIDEEN
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O KAMALDHEEN , NO.11, KULAKKARANSTREET CUMBUM,
UTHAMAPALAYAM, KAMBAM, KAMBAM (M) CUMBUM, THENI,
TAMIL NADU-, PIN - 625516
4 NAJMUNNISA AJMALKHAN
AGED 64 YEARS
W/O AJMALKHAN,NO.10 KULAKKARAN STREET,
UTHAMAPALAYAM, KAMBAM, KAMBAM (M) CUMBUM, THENI,
TAMIL NADU-, PIN - 625516
2025:KER:11713
Bail Appl. Nos.1471, 1428 & 1517 OF 2025
2
BY ADVS.
THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL
ANUPA ANNA JOSE KANDOTH
JAYARAMAN S.
DHANYA SUNNY
ANN MILKA GEORGE
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.HRITHWIK C.S., SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1428/2025, 1517/2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:11713
Bail Appl. Nos.1471, 1428 & 1517 OF 2025
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 23RD MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1428 OF 2025
CRIME NO.195/2025 OF Cumbummettu Police Station, Idukki
PETITIONER/7TH ACCUSED:
JAYESH C CHERIYAN
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O, C.P CHERIYAN, CHILAMBATHU (H),
KADAMAKKUZHI PO, KATTAPPANA IDUKKI, PIN - 685515
BY ADVS.
RUBY K. ROY
SUMESH P.S.
MERIN JOSE
RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.HRITHWIK C.S., SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1471/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASE, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:11713
Bail Appl. Nos.1471, 1428 & 1517 OF 2025
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 23RD MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1517 OF 2025
CRIME NO.195/2015 OF Cumbummettu Police Station, Idukki
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
K BABU
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O, KURIYAN, CHUNKAPPURAYIL (H), MUNDIYARUMA
BHAGAM, KALLAR P O, IDUKKI, PIN - 685552
BY ADVS.
JUSTINE JACOB
JOBIN JOLLY
SUMESH P.S.
MERIN JOSE
RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.HRITHWIK C.S., SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1471/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:11713
Bail Appl. Nos.1471, 1428 & 1517 OF 2025
5
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A.Nos.1471, 1428 & 1517 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2025
ORDER
These Bail Applications filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita are connected and
therefore, I am disposing these bail applications by a common
order.
2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime
No.195/2015 of Cumbummettu Police Station. The above case
is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 406,
409, 465, 466, 468, 471, 474, 477(A) & 120 (b) of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners
and other accused forged fake pattas of properties of which
they do not possess title and thus committed the offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
2025:KER:11713
Bail Appl. Nos.1471, 1428 & 1517 OF 2025
and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that
even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made
out against the petitioners. The counsel further submitted that
the petitioners were not aware of the case and when they
received notice, they came to know about the registration of
the case. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
6. Admittedly the above case is registered in the
year 2015. Sofar the petitioners are not arrested. That itself
shows that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not
necessary. The offences alleged against the petitioners are
forgery and conspiracy. The prosecution can prove the same
through oral evidence. Custodial interrogation of the
petitioners may not be necessary. There can be a direction to
the petitioners to co-operate with the investigation.
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
2025:KER:11713
Bail Appl. Nos.1471, 1428 & 1517 OF 2025
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.
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
2025:KER:11713
Bail Appl. Nos.1471, 1428 & 1517 OF 2025
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."
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, these Bail Applications are allowed with the following
directions:
1. The petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer within two weeks
from today and shall undergo
2025:KER:11713
Bail Appl. Nos.1471, 1428 & 1517 OF 2025
interrogation.
2. After interrogation, if the 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 him from disclosing
such facts to the Court or to any police
officer.
4. The petitioners shall not leave India
2025:KER:11713
Bail Appl. Nos.1471, 1428 & 1517 OF 2025
without permission of the jurisdictional
Court.
5. The 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 granted by this
2025:KER:11713
Bail Appl. Nos.1471, 1428 & 1517 OF 2025
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
JV JUDGE
