Kerala High Court
M.K Bhageeradhan vs State Of Kerala on 17 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:13146
BAIL APPL. NO. 7946 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 28TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 7946 OF 2024
CRIME NO.374/2024 OF Kongad Police Station, Palakkad
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMC NO.4563 OF
2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
M.K BHAGEERADHAN,
AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. SANKARA GUPTHAN,
MANDHATTIL KIZHAKKUMPURATHU HOUSE,
THRIPPALAMUNDA, PARASSERY P.O,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678631
BY ADVS.
VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN
B.ANUSREE
ABHILASH C.V.
VARUN JACOB
MYZA ALAN JOSE
SRI.P VIJAYABHANU SR.
RESPONDENT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2025:KER:13146
BAIL APPL. NO. 7946 OF 2024
2
ADDL.R2 STINIYA K.G,
AGED 43 YEARS
D/O K GOPIDAS, KAPPILL VEEDU, KAYARAMKODE,
MUNDOOR, PALAKKAD- 678592
IS IMPLEADED AS THE ADDITIONAL SECOND RESPONDENT
AS PER ORDER DATED 20.11.2024 IN CRL MA 1/2024 IN
BA 7946/2024.
BY ADVS.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI CK SURESH
S.RAJEEV
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
V.VINAY
M.S.ANEER
SARATH K.P.
PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH
ANILKUMAR C.R.
K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:13146
BAIL APPL. NO. 7946 OF 2024
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A.No.7946 of 2024
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.374/2024
of Kongadu Police Station. The above case is registered against
the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 182,
417, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC).
3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner is
in inimical terms with the father of the defacto complainant and
due to the said animosity, the petitioner had created some
letters addressed to various persons, as if those letters were
signed by her and one Ajayakumar and the letters were sent to
authorities as if she had some grievance against certain political
leaders of Palakkad district. The letters were allegedly
addressed to the Chief Minister and other authorities and were
sent through registered post. It is also alleged that, the above
2025:KER:13146
BAIL APPL. NO. 7946 OF 2024
acts were done in order to tarnish the image of the defacto
complainant, who is an advocate of Palakkad Bar and further on
the belief that, she might lose her job as the official receiver. It
is further alleged that, in the letter, the address of the defacto
complainant as well as her enrollment number were mentioned.
Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences.
4. Heard Sri.P.Vijayabhanu, the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner, Sri.S. Rajeev, the learned counsel for
the defacto complainant and also Sri.C.K.Suresh, the learned
Public Prosecutor.
5. The Senior Counsel submitted that even if the
entire allegations are accepted, the maximum punishment that
can be imposed for the offences alleged is only upto seven
years. The Senior Counsel submitted that the allegations
against the petitioner are not correct and in the connected case,
the petitioner is already released on bail as per order dated
14.10.2024 in BA No.3756/2022. The counsel for the defacto
complainant seriously opposed the bail application and
submitted that the petitioner is a person who is convicted for an
offence under Section 489C IPC. The counsel for the defacto
2025:KER:13146
BAIL APPL. NO. 7946 OF 2024
complainant takes me through the documents and submitted
that it is a clear case in which there is forgery. The counsel also
submitted that the defacto complainant is a lawyer practicing at
Palakkad Bar and she is the official receiver. It will tarnish the
image of the defacto complainant. The counsel submitted that
the petitioner may not be released on bail and he will commit
similar offence in future also. The Senior Public Prosecutor also
seriously opposed the bail application. The Senior Public
Prosecutor made available the bail objection report submitted
by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kongadu.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner, defacto complainant and the Public Prosecutor. This
Court also perused the bail objection report submitted by the
Sub Inspector of Police. On a perusal of the bail objection
report, it is clear that the investigation is almost over. It is only
stated in the bail objection report that the presence of the
petitioner is necessary for taking photographs to compare with
the pictures in the CCTV. Except the same, no other reason is
mentioned in the bail objection report to deny bail. Admittedly
all offences alleged against the petitioner are offences in which
2025:KER:13146
BAIL APPL. NO. 7946 OF 2024
the maximum punishment that can be imposed is upto seven
years. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another
[(2014) 8 SCC 273], the Apex Court observed like this:
"7.1. From a plain reading of the aforesaid
provision, it is evident that a person accused of
offence punishable with imprisonment for a
term which may be less than seven years or
which may extend to seven years with or
without fine, cannot be arrested by the police
officer only on its satisfaction that such person
had committed the offence punishable as
aforesaid. Police officer before arrest, in such
cases has to be further satisfied that such
arrest is necessary to prevent such person
from committing any further offence; or for
proper investigation of the case; or to prevent
the accused from causing the evidence of the
offence to disappear; or tampering with such
evidence in any manner; or to prevent such
person from making any inducement, threat or
promise to a witness so as to dissuade him
from disclosing such facts to the Court or the
police officer; or unless such accused person is
arrested, his presence in the court whenever
required cannot be ensured. These are the
conclusions, which one may reach based on
facts.
2025:KER:13146
BAIL APPL. NO. 7946 OF 2024
7.2. The law mandates the police officer to
state the facts and record the reasons in
writing which led him to come to a conclusion
covered by any of the provisions aforesaid,
while making such arrest. The law further
requires the police officers to record the
reasons in writing for not making the arrest.
7.3. In pith and core, the police officer before
arrest must put a question to himself, why
arrest? Is it really required? What purpose it
will serve? What object it will achieve? It is
only after these questions are addressed and
one or the other conditions as enumerated
above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to
be exercised. In fine, before arrest first the
police officers should have reason to believe on
the basis of information and material that the
accused has committed the offence. Apart from
this, the police officer has to be satisfied
further that the arrest is necessary for one or
the more purposes envisaged by sub-clauses
(a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 CrPC."
Keeping in mind the above principle, this Court considered the
prosecution case once again. I think custodial interrogation of
the petitioner is not necessary. There can be a direction to the
petitioner to co-operate with the investigation. There can be a
2025:KER:13146
BAIL APPL. NO. 7946 OF 2024
direction to surrender before the Investigating Officer within
two weeks and the Investigating Officer can interrogate the
petitioner for two days from 10 am to 4 pm.After interrogation,
if the arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to release the
petitioner 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
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
2025:KER:13146
BAIL APPL. NO. 7946 OF 2024
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."
9. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of
2025:KER:13146
BAIL APPL. NO. 7946 OF 2024
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, I think bail can be granted after imposing stringent
conditions.
Therefore, this Bail Application is allowed with the
following directions:
1. The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer within two weeks
from today and shall undergo
interrogation. The Investigating Officer can
interrogate the petitioner for two
consecutive days from 10 am to 4 pm.
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
2025:KER:13146
BAIL APPL. NO. 7946 OF 2024
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 offence
similar to the offence of which he is
accused, or suspected, of the commission
of which he is suspected.
6. Needless to mention, it would be well
within the powers of the investigating
2025:KER:13146
BAIL APPL. NO. 7946 OF 2024
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 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
JV JUDGE
