Kerala High Court
G.S Prakash vs State Of Kerala on 25 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:16250
BA Nos.2322, 2323, 2324, 2325 & 2460 of 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2322 OF 2025
CRIME NO.227/2025 OF Vanchiyoor Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:
G.S PRAKASH
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, T.C 27/926,
'SABARIGIRI', VANCHIYOOR P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
BY ADV ANEESH JAMES
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
SRI HRITHWIK CS, SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2323/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:16250
BA Nos.2322, 2323, 2324, 2325 & 2460 of 2025
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2323 OF 2025
CRIME NO.242/2025 OF Vanchiyoor Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
G.S PRAKASH
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, T.C 27/926,
'SABARIGIRI', VANCHIYOOR P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
BY ADV ANEESH JAMES
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
SRI HRITHWIK CS, SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2322/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:16250
BA Nos.2322, 2323, 2324, 2325 & 2460 of 2025
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2324 OF 2025
CRIME NO.228/2025 OF Vanchiyoor Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
G.S PRAKASH
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, T.C 27/926,
'SABARIGIRI', VANCHIYOOR P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
BY ADV ANEESH JAMES
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
SRI G SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2322/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:16250
BA Nos.2322, 2323, 2324, 2325 & 2460 of 2025
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2325 OF 2025
CRIME NO.219/2025 OF Vanchiyoor Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
G.S PRAKASH
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, T.C 27/926,
'SABARIGIRI', VANCHIYOOR P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
BY ADV ANEESH JAMES
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
SRI G SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2322/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:16250
BA Nos.2322, 2323, 2324, 2325 & 2460 of 2025
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2460 OF 2025
CRIME NO.261/2025 OF Vanchiyoor Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
G.S PRAKASH
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, T.C 27/926,
'SABARIGIRI', VANCHIYOOR P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
BY ADV ANEESH JAMES
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
SRI NOUSHAD KA, SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2322/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:16250
BA Nos.2322, 2323, 2324, 2325 & 2460 of 2025
6
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.Nos. 2322, 2323, 2324, 2325 & 2460 of 2025
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of February, 2025
ORDER
These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. These bail
applications are connected and therefore I am disposing of
these cases by a common order.
2. The petitioner in these bail applications is the
accused in different crimes registered by Vanchiyoor Police
Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The above cases are registered
against the petitioner inter alia under Sections 408, 409 and
420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the
defacto complainants in these cases made fixed deposits at
Vanchinadu Bhavana Nirmana Sahakarana Sanghom on
different occasions from the year 2008 to 2021 and they were
offered interest. It is submitted that, even though the
2025:KER:16250
BA Nos.2322, 2323, 2324, 2325 & 2460 of 2025
depositors received interest for a certain period, subsequently,
the depositors did not receive the interest and principal
amount. Hence the above cases are registered at the instance
of the depositors.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that,
some of the accused were already released on bail by the
Sessions Court under Section 482 of the BNSS in some other
cases with the same set of facts. The counsel submitted that
the defacto complainants in these cases admitted that they
received interest for a certain period and thereafter the interest
was not paid. The petitioner is a lawyer and he was the Vice
President of the society. It is submitted that, because of the
financial difficulty, the society was not able to disburse the
amount in bulk. It is also submitted that the society is taking
steps to disburse the amount to the depositors. The counsel
also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any
conditions if this Court grant him bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the
2025:KER:16250
BA Nos.2322, 2323, 2324, 2325 & 2460 of 2025
bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the
cases were registered after an enquiry was conducted by the
Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies under Section 65
of the Co-operative Societies Act. Serious irregularities are
found by the Joint Registrar. The Public Prosecutor submitted
that the investigation is going on. Therefore, this Court may
not grant bail to the petitioner under Section 482 of the BNSS.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the
allegations against the petitioner is serious. But the fact
remains that some of the accused, who are involved in the
connected crimes with the same set of facts, were released on
bail by the Sessions Court. Moreover, the main offences
alleged against the petitioner are misappropriation of fund,
cheating, forgery etc. The prosecution can prove the same
through oral and documentary evidences. Considering the facts
and circumstances of the case, I think the custodial
interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary.
Therefore, these bail applications can be allowed on stringent
conditions. There can be a direction to the petitioner to appear
2025:KER:16250
BA Nos.2322, 2323, 2324, 2325 & 2460 of 2025
before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10 A.M., till
the final report is filed.
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 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
2025:KER:16250
BA Nos.2322, 2323, 2324, 2325 & 2460 of 2025
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."
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.
11. Considering the dictum laid down in the above
decision and considering the facts and circumstances of these
cases, these Bail Applications are allowed with the following
directions:
1. The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer within two weeks from
today and shall undergo interrogation.
2025:KER:16250
BA Nos.2322, 2323, 2324, 2325 & 2460 of 2025
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
them 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,
2025:KER:16250
BA Nos.2322, 2323, 2324, 2325 & 2460 of 2025
or suspected, of the commission of which he
is suspected.
6. Petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10
A.M., till the final report is filed.
7. 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].
8. 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
2025:KER:16250
BA Nos.2322, 2323, 2324, 2325 & 2460 of 2025
the bail, if any of the above conditions are
violated.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
JV
