Kerala High Court

Anju Viswanathan vs State Of Kerala on 10 January, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                                             2025:KER:2240



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

     FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 20TH POUSHA, 1946

                    BAIL APPL. NO. 11244 OF 2024


PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

    1       ANJU VISWANATHAN,
            AGED 40 YEARS
            GLOBELIA INTERNATIONAL LLP, MANAGER, DOOR NO. 1/513,
            1/415, VIJAYASAGA BUILDING, MAMALA PO, THIRUVANIYOOR
            VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM RURAL,KERALA, PIN - 682305

    2       ANJU VISWANATHAN,
            AGED 40 YEARS
            GLOBELIA INTERNATIONAL LLP, MANAGER,DOOR NO. 1/513,
            1/415, VIJAYASAGA BUILDING,MAMALA PO, THIRUVANIYOOR
            VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM RURAL,KERALA, PIN - 682305

            BY ADVS.
            BINNY THOMAS
            ATHUL ROY
            INDRAJITH DILEEP
            HELEN P.A.


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS:

    1       STATE OF KERALA,
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
            PIN - 682031

    2       STATE OF KERALA,
            THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHOTTANIKKARA POLICE
            STATION,ERNAKULAM REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
            OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

            SRI.G.SUDHEER, GP


     THIS   BAIL   APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR    ADMISSION   ON
10.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                2025:KER:2240
BAIL APPL. NO.11244 OF 2024

                                         2
                     P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                  --------------------------------
                    B.A.No.11244 of 2024
                   -------------------------------
          Dated this the 10th day of January, 2025


                                   ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime

No.749/2024 of Chottanikkara Police Station. The above case

is registered against the petitioner alleging offences

punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and Section 3(5) of

the BNS.

3. The prosecution case is that, as the Manager

of M/s. Globalia International, colluded with the 1st accused to

cause a wrongful loss of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant to

Mr.Jeemon Chettiat, by purpotedly overpricing polymer

sheets. It was alleged that 13 polymer sheets were sold on

13.03.2024 and 12 polymer sheets were sold on 26.03.2024,

for an alleged excess cost of Rs.1000/- per sheet, resulting 2025:KER:2240 BAIL APPL. NO.11244 OF 2024

financial gain.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the

Public Prosecutor.

5. When this bail application came up for

consideration, on 27.12.2024, this Court passed the following

order:

The learned Public Prosecutor seeks time to get instructions.

2. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the allegation against the petitioner, who was working as the Manager of a showroom, is very vague and no offence has been made out.

3. Taking note of the allegations raised, prima facie, it appears that the dispute is regarding the price of materials purchased by the complainant.

There are some disputes about commission alleged to have been received by the carpenter engaged by the complainant. Carpenter has been arrayed as the first accused. The case is registered on the basis of a private complaint forwarded to the Police by the jurisdictional Magistrate.

4. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner is a lady who was an employee of the showroom and also the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I find it appropriate to grant interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner for a period of two weeks. The petitioner, in the event of arrest, shall be released on bail on the following conditions:

2025:KER:2240 BAIL APPL. NO.11244 OF 2024

i. Petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer;

ii. Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.749 of 2024 of Chottanikkara Police station as and when summoned to do so;

iii. Petitioner 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and tamper with the evidence.

5. If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.749 of 2024 of Chottanikkara Police station may file an application before this Court for recalling this order.

6. After hearing both sides, I think the above

order can be made absolute. There can be a direction to the

petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer once

again for completing the investigation.

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 2025:KER:2240 BAIL APPL. NO.11244 OF 2024

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 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."

2025:KER:2240 BAIL APPL. NO.11244 OF 2024

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.

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, she

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.

2025:KER:2240 BAIL APPL. NO.11244 OF 2024

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.