Kerala High Court
Nidhina P Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 21 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:15187
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025/2ND PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2031 OF 2025
CRIME NO.552/2024 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER:
NIDHINA P THOMAS
AGED 34 YEARS, C/O THOMAS, PUTHANPURACKKAL HOUSE,
KEEZHPALLY P.O, ARALAM, KANNUR, PIN - 670 704.
BY ADVS.
ABESH ALOSIOUS
CHRISTINE MATHEW
RAPHAEL THEKKAN
ABEL ANTONY
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031
BY ADV
SEETHU S., SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2111/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:15187
B.A No.2031 of 2025 and Conn.Cases
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025/2ND PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2111 OF 2025
CRIME NO.359/2024 OF ERNAKULAM SOUTH POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER:
NIDHINA P THOMAS
AGED 34 YEARS, C/O THOMAS, PUTHANPURACKKAL HOUSE,
KEEZHPALLY P.O, ARALAM, KANNUR, PIN - 670 704.
BY ADVS.
ABESH ALOSIOUS
CHRISTINE MATHEW
RAPHAEL THEKKAN
ABEL ANTONY
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031
BY ADV
SEETHU S., SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2031/2025, 2113/2025 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:15187
B.A No.2031 of 2025 and Conn.Cases
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025/2ND PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2113 OF 2025
CRIME NO.553/2024 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER:
NIDHINA P THOMAS
AGED 34 YEARS, C/O THOMAS, PUTHANPURACKKAL HOUSE,
KEEZHPALLY P.O, ARALAM, KANNUR, PIN - 670 704.
BY ADVS.
ABESH ALOSIOUS
CHRISTINE MATHEW
RAPHAEL THEKKAN
ABEL ANTONY
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031
BY ADV
SEETHU S., SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2111/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:15187
B.A No.2031 of 2025 and Conn.Cases
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025/2ND PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2116 OF 2025
CRIME NO.554/2024 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER:
NIDHINA P THOMAS
AGED 34 YEARS, C/O THOMAS, PUTHANPURACKKAL HOUSE,
KEEZHPALLY P.O, ARALAM, KANNUR, PIN - 670 704.
BY ADVS.
ABESH ALOSIOUS
CHRISTINE MATHEW
RAPHAEL THEKKAN
ABEL ANTONY
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031
BY ADV
G.SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2111/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:15187
B.A No.2031 of 2025 and Conn.Cases
5
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.Nos.2031, 2111, 2113
and 2116 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of February, 2025
COMMON ORDER
These Bail Applications filed under Section 482 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita are connected,
because the petitioner in these cases is one and the same,
therefore I am disposing these cases by a common order.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime
No.359/2024 of Ernakulam South Police Station and in
Crime Nos.552/2024, 553/2024 and 554/2024 of
Palarivattom Police Station, Ernakulam. All these cases are
registered against the petitioner alleging inter alia under
Sections 406, 420, 465 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short 'IPC').
3. The prosecution case is that the 1 st
accused, who is the owner of F & O Global Plus Day, and the
2025:KER:15187
B.A No.2031 of 2025 and Conn.Cases
other accused are partners, offered a visa for a care
assistant position to the defacto complainants in these
cases. It is alleged that the accused collected huge amount
from the defacto complainants, and it is also alleged that
the accused forged a Certificate of Sponsorship (COS) letter
with a common intention.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is the wife of the 2 nd accused
in all these cases. The petitioner is not involved in the day
to day affairs of the company. The counsel submitted that
the petitioner is innocent and the petitioner is ready to
abide any conditions, if this Court grants her bail.
6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that she is
involved in yet another case also with similar allegations.
The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is
actively involved in this case, and the petitioner and the
2025:KER:15187
B.A No.2031 of 2025 and Conn.Cases
other accused cheated several persons.
7. This Court considered the contention of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the
petitioner is the 3rd accused, except in Crime No.554/2024
of Palarivattom Police Station. In that case, the petitioner is
the 4th accused. The main allegation is against the other
accused. The petitioner is the wife of the 2 nd accused. The
allegation is that the petitioner and other accused cheated
the defacto complainant in this case. Prosecution can prove
the case through oral and documentary evidence. No
custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think
the petitioner can be released on bail 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 Court in Chidambaram. P v Directorate of
Enforcement [2019 (16) SCALE 870], after considering
all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic
2025:KER:15187
B.A No.2031 of 2025 and Conn.Cases
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)
2025:KER:15187
B.A No.2031 of 2025 and Conn.Cases
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."
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
2025:KER:15187
B.A No.2031 of 2025 and Conn.Cases
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/-(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.
2025:KER:15187
B.A No.2031 of 2025 and Conn.Cases
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 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 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
2025:KER:15187
B.A No.2031 of 2025 and Conn.Cases
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
