Kerala High Court
Rajitha vs State Of Kerala on 14 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:12600
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. 2019 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1412/2024 OF VADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2025 IN CRMC NO.7014 OF
2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
RAJITHA
AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.SURESH BABU, ERATTU VEEDU,
KARIPODE, PUDUNAGARAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 503.
BY ADV
V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT AND COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031
BY ADV
NOUSHAD K.A, SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:12600
B.A No.2019 of 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.2019 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 accused in Crime
No.1412 of 2024 of Vadakkencherry Police Station. The
above case is registered against the petitioner and
another alleging offences punishable under Sections 420
and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
(for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 read with 21, 4 read with
22 and 5 read with 23 of the Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Scheme Act (for short 'BUDS Act').
3. The prosecution case is that the 1 st
accused being the Managing Director and Director of the
Financial Institution by name Finspot India Nidhi Limited
2025:KER:12600
having its Branch Office at Vadakkencherry, received an
amount of Rs.44,80,000/- from the defacto complainant
as fixed deposit for a period of one year promising to
repay with interest at the rate of 12.5%. it is alleged that
the the principal amount interest is not paid. Hence it is
alleged that the accused committed the offence.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is the 2 nd accused. The main allegation
is against the 1st accused. It is also submitted that the
allegations against the petitioner are not correct. It is
further submitted that because of some financial
difficulty, the amount is not disbursed and the accused
are taking steps to settle the matter.
6. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed
the bail application and submitted that there are two
other cases registered against the petitioner and other
2025:KER:12600
accused in the same police station. The Public Prosecutor
also submitted that the 1st accused was arrested and he
was released on bail and thereafter he violated the bail
conditions and an application for cancellation of bail is
pending.
7. This Court considered the contentions of
the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. A perusal of the
prosecution case would show that the 1st accused is the
Managing Director and the petitioner is the Director of
the company. The main allegation is against the 1 st
accused and he is already arrested.
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
2025:KER:12600
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 Kumar v. State of UP and
Others (1994 KHC 189: (1994) 4 SCC
260: 1994 (1) KLT 919: 1994 (2) KLJ
2025:KER:12600
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:12600
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, she 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
inducement, threat or promise to any
2025:KER:12600
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
she is accused, or suspected, of the
commission of which she 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
2025:KER:12600
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 of the above
conditions are violated.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
AMR
