Kerala High Court
Linson C. C vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
B.A.No.1909 of 2025
1
2025:KER:13489
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 29TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1909 OF 2025
CRIME NO.744/2024 OF KARIMANNOOR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI
PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED:
LINSON C. C.
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O CHITTILAPPILLY THOMA CHERU, JOSCO EDUCATIONAL
CONSULTANCY, H.O. G-12, TRINITY COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
NEXT TO CENTRAL RAILWAY STATION, ATTAVAR ROAD,
MANGLORE, KARNATAKA, PIN - 575001
BY ADVS.
RAJESH. K.RAJU
MOHAPRASEED MOHAN
POOJA THAMBI
RESPONDENT(S):
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SRI.NOUSHAD K.A., SENIOR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.1909 of 2025
2
2025:KER:13489
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.1909 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
2. Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.774/2024
(wrongly mentioned as 744/2024 in the docket) of Karimannoor
Police Station. The above case is charge-sheeted against the
petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner along
with the 1st accused to make unlawful gain and to cheat the defacto
complainant, made them believe that they would give admission to
the defacto complainant's daughter at Mangalapuram Father
Muller's Nursing College and on 30.04.2024 received ₹5,000/- as
advance from the defacto complainant. Subsequently, on
15.05.2024, ₹2,00,000/- was transferred to the 1 st accused
2025:KER:13489
institution, Josco Educational Consultancy, Account
No.0078102000010849 through mobile banking. Thereafter, on
18.07.2024 and on 26.08.2024, ₹1,00,000/- and ₹32,750/-
respectively, were also transferred to the above account number,
but they did not arrange admission to the nursing college and did
not return the money and thereby committed the above crime.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that,
even if the entire allegations are accepted, it is only a monetary
dispute.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposes the bail
application.
7. After hearing both sides, I think the custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. The prosecution
can prove the case through oral evidence. Therefore, bail can be
granted after imposing stringent conditions.
8. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the
bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme
2025:KER:13489
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.
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 97: AIR 1994 SC 1349: 1994 CriLJ 1981)) If
arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm
2025:KER:13489
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:
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/-
2025:KER:13489
(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 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
2025:KER:13489
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 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
DM
