Kerala High Court
Pradeep. T.S vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 1929 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:13728
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. 1929 OF 2025
CRIME NO.30/2025 OF Chavara Police Station, Kollam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 06.02.2025 IN CRMC
NO.193 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM
PETITIONER/S:
PRADEEP. T.S.
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O. SALIM T.K., MADATHIL HOUSE, SNEHA NAGAR, 217,
PATHATHANAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691021
BY ADVS.
SHAJIN S.HAMEED
SONAY JOHN
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
SRI.NOUSHAD KA, SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 1929 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:13728
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A. No. 1929 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.
30/2024 of Chavara Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable
under Sec. 420 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner-
accused promised the defacto complainant to arrange an
employment Visa in Finland. Believing the words of the
petitioner-accused, the defacto complainant transferred
Rs.6,00,000/- to the account of the petitioner. But, the
petitioner- accused failed to provide the Visa and the
2025:KER:13728
amount also not returned. Hence, it is alleged that the
accused committed the offences.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the allegation against the petitioner is not correct. Originally,
the defacto complainant requested the petitioner to arrange a
Visa to Italy. Subsequently, the defacto complainant changed
his request and he requested for getting a Visa to Finland. The
petitioner told the defacto complainant that, for getting
Finland Visa, some more amount is to be paid. Without paying
the same, the present complaint is filed, is the submission. The
Public Prosecutor opposed the petitioner. The Public
Prosecutor submitted that there is no criminal antecedents to
the petitioner, with similar offence.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. No criminal antecedents
is alleged against the petitioner. According to the petitioner,
the defacto complainant has not paid the balance amount for
2025:KER:13728
getting Finland job Visa. The defacto complainant has got a
case that he paid the amount. It seems that it is a monetary
claim. Whether any criminal offence is made out is a matter to
be investigated. I do not want to make any observation about
the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of this
case, I think custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not
necessary and the petitioner 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
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
2025:KER:13728
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-
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
2025:KER:13728
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
petitioners, 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 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,
2025:KER:13728
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 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
2025:KER:13728
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
SKS
