Kerala High Court
Muhammed Afsal Valiyapeediyekkal vs State Of Kerala on 13 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BA Nos.10180 and 10184 of 2024
1
2024:KER:96953
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 10184 OF 2024
CRIME NO.843/2024 OF CHAKKARAKKAL POLICE SATION,
KANNUR
PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED:
MUHAMMED AFSAL VALIYAPEEDIYEKKAL
AGED 39 YEARS, S/O KUNHIMOHAMMED
VALIYAPEEDIYEKKAL, VALIYAPEEDIYEKKAL HOUSE,
KARIPARAMBU, PANTHARANGADI.P.O.,
TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 306
BY ADVS.
A.RAJASIMHAN
VYKHARI.K.U
SHARAFUDHEEN M.K.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031
BY ADV.:
SMT SREEJA V., SR. PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.12.2024, ALONG WITH Bail Appl. NO.10180/2024, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BA Nos.10180 and 10184 of 2024
2
2024:KER:96953
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 10180 OF 2024
CRIME NO.842/2024 OF CHAKKARAKKAL POLICE SATION,
KANNUR
PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED:
MUHAMMED AFSAL VALIYAPEEDIYEKKAL
AGED 39 YEARS, S/O KUNHIMOHAMMED
VALIYAPEEDIYEKKAL, VALIYAPEEDIYEKKAL HOUSE,
KARIPARAMBU, PANTHARANGADI.P.O.,
TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 306
BY ADVS.
A.RAJASIMHAN
VYKHARI.K.U
SHARAFUDHEEN M.K.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.:
SRI NOUSHAD K.A SR,PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.12.2024, ALONG WITH Bail Appl. NO.10184/2024, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BA Nos.10180 and 10184 of 2024
3
2024:KER:96953
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
BA Nos. 10180 and 10184 of 2024
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of December, 2024
ORDER
These Bail Applications are filed under Section
482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS),
2023. The petitioner in both these cases are one and
the same and therefore, I am disposing of these two
cases by a common order.
2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime
Nos.842/2024 and 843/2024 of Chakkarakallu Police
Station, Kannur. The above crimes are registered
against the petitioner alleging offence punishable
under Section 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused
promised the defacto complainants to arrange Hajj
BA Nos.10180 and 10184 of 2024
2024:KER:96953
pilgrim and the accused received huge amount from
the defacto complainants. It is the case of the
prosecution that the accused failed to facilitate the
same. Hence, these crimes are registered.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that, due to some technical problem the defacto
complainants were not able to sent for Hajj pilgrim.
The counsel takes me through the documents
produced along with the bail applications. The
counsel submitted that the petitioner is trying to
settle all the disputes of the defacto complainants.
The counsel also submitted that the petitioner will
cooperate with the investigation and he is ready to
abide any condition imposed by this Court, if this
Court grant him bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
BA Nos.10180 and 10184 of 2024
2024:KER:96953
application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that, in
addition to these two cases, another case is also
registered against the petitioner for the same set of
facts.
7. This Court considered the contentions of
the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It seems
that the allegation is that, after paying the amount,
the petitioner was not able to take the defacto
complainants for Hajj pilgrim. A perusal of the bail
application would show that the petitioner is trying to
settle all these issues. In such circumstances, I think,
the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not
necessary in these cases. 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
BA Nos.10180 and 10184 of 2024
2024:KER:96953
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
BA Nos.10180 and 10184 of 2024
2024:KER:96953
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 decisions and considering the facts and
circumstances of this case, these bail applications are
allowed in the following manner:
BA Nos.10180 and 10184 of 2024
2024:KER:96953
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.
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
BA Nos.10180 and 10184 of 2024
2024:KER:96953
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
she is accused, or suspected, of the
commission of which she is suspected.
6. If any of the above conditions are
violated by the petitioner, the
jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in
accordance with 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,
BA Nos.10180 and 10184 of 2024
2024:KER:96953
if any of the above conditions are
violated.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
nvj JUDGE
