Kerala High Court
Sajini vs State Of Kerala on 14 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BA No.1707 of 2025
1
2025:KER:12705
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. 1707 OF 2025
CRIME NO.81/2025 OF CHIRAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED:
SAJINI
AGED 34 YEARS, SREEKARTHIKA, KODUMON,
VILAYIMOOLA, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT,, PIN - 695301
BY ADVS.
M.R.RAJESH
SANDHYA E.S.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031
BY ADV.
SRI. 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:
BA No.1707 of 2025
2
2025:KER:12705
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
BA No.1707 of 2025
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
2. The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime
No.81/2025 of Chirayankeezhu Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is registered
against the petitioner and others alleging offence
punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner
and the defacto complainant, who is the husband of
the petitioner, are living separately. They have two
minor children. The defacto complainant has
2025:KER:12705
deserted the petitioner and the children from January
2021. It is alleged that the petitioner took a loan
from the FD which is deposited in favour of the minor
children. Hence, it is alleged that the accused
committed the offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Admittedly, the defacto complainant and
the petitioner herein are husband and wife. It is also
an admitted fact that there is some matrimonial
disputes between the parties. According to the
petitioner there are 6 cases pending, which is
mentioned in paragraph No.3 of the bail application.
The admitted prosecution case is that the petitioner
who is the nominee in the Fixed Deposit, took loan
from the bank using the FD receipt. I don't want to
make any observation about the same. Considering
2025:KER:12705
the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, the
petitioner can be released on bail after imposing
stringent conditions.
6. 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 exception so as to ensure
that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair
trial.
7. 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
2025:KER:12705
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."
8. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of
2025:KER:12705
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
decisions and considering the facts and
circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is
allowed with the following conditions:
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
2025:KER:12705
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
2025:KER:12705
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 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 this bail
2025:KER:12705
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
nvj JUDGE
