Kerala High Court
K.A. Shamsudheen vs State Of Kerala on 14 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 1714 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:12490
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. 1714 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1092/2024 OF Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/S:
1 K.A. SHAMSUDHEEN
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O ABOO C.M, PRINCETON SKYLINE IVY LEAGUE
APPARTMENTS, 8F, NEAR INFO PARK, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
2 ASIF SHA
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O K.A. SHAMSUDHEEN, PRINCETON SKYLINE IVY LEAGUE
APPARTMENTS, 8F, NEAR INFO PARK, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
3 ABIN SHA
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O K.A. SHAMSUDHEEN, PRINCETON SKYLINE IVY LEAGUE
APPARTMENTS, 8F, NEAR INFO PARK, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
BY ADVS.
SR.ADV.SRI.MOHAMMED YOUSEFF TM, FOR PETITIONER
AYSHA YOUSEFF
ASHIFA YOUSEFF
AKHEELA FARZANA
BAIL APPL. NO. 1714 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:12490
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM CITY, PIN -
682033
SRI.G.SUDHEER PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 1714 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:12490
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A. No. 1714 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. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.
1092/2024 of Kalamassery Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable
under Secs. 406, 420, 506, 120B r/w 34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused Nos 1
to 5 misappropriated an amount of Rs.14,92,000/-.
4. Heard Sri.Mohammed Youseff T.M., Sr.counsel
represented by his retaining counsel. Heard the Public
2025:KER:12490
Prosecutor also.
5. The Sr. Counsel submitted that even if the
entire allegations are accepted, the offences alleged are not
attracted. The counsel submitted that it is only a violation of
an agreement and no ingredients of cheating is there in this
case. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. This Court also perused
the First Information report. It seems that it is a monetary
dispute. Whether there is any ingredients to attract the
offences alleged, 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, I think the petitioners
can be released on bail, after imposing stringent conditions.
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
2025:KER:12490
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.
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-
2025:KER:12490
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, this Bail Application is allowed with the following
directions:
1. The petitioners shall appear
before the Investigating Officer within two
weeks from today and shall undergo
interrogation.
2. After interrogation, if the
2025:KER:12490
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) 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
them from disclosing such facts to the Court
or to any police officer.
4. Petitioners shall not leave India
2025:KER:12490
without permission of the jurisdictional
Court.
5. 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
2025:KER:12490
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
SKS
