Kerala High Court
Sreekumar B vs State Of Kerala on 22 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BA Nos.4724 and 4728 of 2024
1
2025:KER:5041
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 2ND MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 4728 OF 2024
CRIME NO.716/2023 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.3:
SREEKUMAR B,
AGED 56 YEARS, S/O BALAKRISHNA PILLAI,
AMBALTHUM VILA, CHAVADINADA,VENGANNOOR P O,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 523
BY ADV P.A.MUJEEB
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031
BY ADV.
SRI. NOUSHAD K.A., SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.01.2025, ALONG WITH Bail
Appl..4724/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
BA Nos.4724 and 4728 of 2024
2
2025:KER:5041
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 2ND MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 4724 OF 2024
CRIME NO.716/2023 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.4:
RADHIKA,
AGED 45 YEARS, D/O SHANKARAN NAIR,
AMBALTHUM VILA, CHAVADINADA, VENGANOOR P O,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 523
BY ADV P.A.MUJEEB
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SRI. G. SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.01.2025, ALONG WITH Bail
Appl..4728/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
BA Nos.4724 and 4728 of 2024
3
2025:KER:5041
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
BA Nos.4724 and 4728 of 2024
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2025
ORDER
These Bail Applications are filed under Section
482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS),
2023. These two bail applications are connected and
therefore, I am disposing of these two cases by a
common order.
2. The petitioners are accused Nos.3 and 4 in
Crime No.716/2023 of Kodakara Police Station,
Thrissur. The above case is registered against the
petitioners and others alleging offences punishable
under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused in
these cases induced the defacto complainant to
BA Nos.4724 and 4728 of 2024
2025:KER:5041
invest money with them on the assurance of paying
him good profit. Consequently, the defacto
complainant invested Rs.38,50,000/- in the business
of the accused named "Day Trade". But, the accused
did not pay any profit or return the capital. Hence, it
is alleged that the accused committed the offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the 1st accused was already released
on bail. There is no serious allegations against the
petitioners. The petitioners are the parents of the 1 st
accused. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
bail application.
6. This Court considered the contentions of
the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.
Admittedly, the 1st accused was already released on
BA Nos.4724 and 4728 of 2024
2025:KER:5041
bail. The main allegation is against the 1 st accused
who is the son of the petitioners. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, I think, the
petitioners 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
BA Nos.4724 and 4728 of 2024
2025:KER:5041
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
BA Nos.4724 and 4728 of 2024
2025:KER:5041
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.
Considering the dictum laid down in the above
decisions and considering the facts and
circumstances of this case, these Bail Applications
are allowed with the following conditions:
1. The petitioners 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,
they shall be released on bail on
BA Nos.4724 and 4728 of 2024
2025:KER:5041
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 petitioners shall appear before
the Investigating Officer for interrogation
as and when required. The petitioners
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. Petitioners shall not leave India
without permission of the jurisdictional
BA Nos.4724 and 4728 of 2024
2025:KER:5041
Court.
5. Petitioners shall not commit an
offence similar to the offence of which
they are accused, or suspected, of the
commission of which they are 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 petitioners even while the
petitioners are 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 petitioners the
BA Nos.4724 and 4728 of 2024
2025:KER:5041
jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in
accordance to law, even though this 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
nvj JUDGE
