Kerala High Court

Nikhil Narendranath K vs State Of Kerala on 14 February, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                                          2025:KER:12503
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

    FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 25TH MAGHA, 1946

                     BAIL APPL. NO. 1636 OF 2025

CRIME NO.22/2025 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

        AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2025 IN CRMC NO.250 OF 2025

            OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM


PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED:

            NIKHIL NARENDRANATH K
            AGED 42 YEARS, ADVOCATE, SON OF NARENDRANATH,
            43/2332, SASTHA TEMPLE ROAD, ERNAKULAM,
            PIN - 682 018.

            BY ADVS.
            T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
            K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
            S.M.PRASANTH
            DEVIKA S.
            RESHMA DAS P.



RESPONDENT/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.

    2       THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
            CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM,
            PIN - 682018

            BY ADV
            G.SUDHEER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


     THIS    BAIL   APPLICATION    HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
14.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                    2025:KER:12503
B.A No.1636 of 2025
                                   2


                   P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                --------------------------------
                   B.A.No.1636 of 2025
                 -------------------------------
        Dated this the 14th day of February, 2025


                              ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. Petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime No.22

of 2025 of Ernakulam Central Police Station. The above case

is registered against the petitioner and others alleging

offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 3(5)

of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').

3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner

herein along with other accused person with an intention to

deceive the defacto complainant promised that they will

arrange Rs.50 Crores as loan for the business run by the

defacto complainant in Trivandrum. Believing the promise

of the accused persons the defacto complainant transferred 2025:KER:12503

Rs.30,00,000/- to the account of the 1st accused for

registering sale deed. Accused Nos.4 and 7, made the

defacto complainant to believe that their office is engaged

in arranging loan. It is also alleged that the petitioner

obtained Rs.19,000/- for visiting the property in this regard.

As directed by the 4th accused, who is the petitioner herein,

the defacto complainant transferred Rs.19,000/- to the

friend of the 4th accused. That was received by the 4 th

accused through Google Pay. Hence, it is submitted that the

accused together committed the offence.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the

Public Prosecutor.

5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted,

there is no serious allegation against the petitioner, who is

the 4th accused. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is

a lawyer. He is not involved in this case. He is falsely

implicated in this case.

2025:KER:12503

6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the

allegation against the petitioner and other accused are very

serious.

7. This Court considered the contention of the

petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. I perfectly agree with

the submission of the Public Prosecutor that the allegation

against the accused are serious. But, the petitioner is the 4 th

accused. Even according to the prosecution, the amount

given to the petitioner, who is the 4 th accused, is only

Rs.19,000/-. The petitioner is a lawyer. Considering the facts

and circumstances of the case, I think bail can be granted to

the petitioner. But, I make it clear that this order is

applicable only to the petitioner and the bail application of

the other accused will be considered independently.

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 2025:KER:12503

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 2025:KER:12503

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.

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:

2025:KER:12503

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.