Kerala High Court
Thoufeek R vs State Of Kerala on 27 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 7914 & 11258 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:6590
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 7TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 11258 OF 2024
CRIME NO.300/2024 OF Palarivattom Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/S:
V.S. ABHILASH,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O. VIJAYAKUMAR, RESIDING AT AAYILYAM HOUSE,
ORUTTAMBALAM P.O., MARANELLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695507
BY ADV SIVARAM R.MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 VIVEK VISWANATHAN
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O VISWANATHAN, VISWAM VEETIL, PILAPUZHA, HARIPPAD,
ALAPUZHA PIN-690514 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R2 AS PER
ORDER DATED 09/1/2025 IN CRL.MA.1/2025
BY ADV PRAVEEN K. JOY
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.01.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..7914/2024, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 7914 & 11258 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:6590
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 7TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 7914 OF 2024
CRIME NO.300/2024 OF Palarivattom Police Station, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.6007 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/S:
THOUFEEK R,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O LATE ABDUL RASHEED, PALACE MANZIL, T.C 48/985,
AMBALATHARA, POONITHURA.P.O., MANAKKADU VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695009
BY ADVS.
NAVANEETH.N.NATH
ABHIRAMI S.
GAUTHAM KRISHNA E.J.
RESPONDENT/S
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 VIVEK VISWANATHAN,
S/O VISWANATHAN,VISWAM HOUSE, PILAPPUZHA.P.O.,
HARIPPADM, ALAPPUZHA, NOW RESIDING AT BCG BUNGLOW,
VILLA NO.B.V.12A, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, VENNALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 028 ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED )
BY ADV PRAVEEN K. JOY
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.01.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..11258/2024, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 7914 & 11258 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:6590
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A. Nos.7914 & 11258 of 2024
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2025
ORDER
These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. The petitioners are accused in Crime
No.300/2024 of Palarivattom Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable
under secs. 380,383, 120B r/w 34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the 3 rd accused
along with the co-accused promised the defacto complainant
that he will be give a chance for acting in movies and also will
be made as a partner in Hajj ticket booking business and
obtained Rs.1,55,00,000/- from the defacto complainant and
Rs.82,08,600/- from the defacto complainant's wife and later
on 15.12.2023, the defacto complainant approached the
petitioner/3rd accused along with the co-accused with the
2025:KER:6590
rd
documents and the petitioner/3 accused along with other co-
accused intimidated the defacto complainant by showing a
knife and thereby obtained Rs.1,17,10,400/- wrongfully from
the defacto complainant and thereby, the petitioner/3 rd
accused has committed the offences.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that
even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made
out. The counsel submitted that the defacto complainant
already filed criminal complaints before the jurisdictional
criminal court to prosecute the petitioners under Sec. 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act. The counsel submitted that no
offence is made out and it is only a monetary dispute. The
counsel appearing for the defacto complainant seriously
opposed the bail application. The counsel submitted that the
documents were taken away by the petitioners and the same is
to be seized. Unless custodial interrogation is there, the
documents cannot be seized. The Public Prosecutor opposed
2025:KER:6590
the bail application.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. I think there is some
monetary dispute between the petitioners and the defacto
complainant. Whether any criminal offence is made out in the
facts and circumstances of this case is a matter to be
investigated by the investigating officer. I do not want to make
any observation about the same. But, the defacto complainant
already initiated criminal prosecution against the petitioners
under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act because the
cheque issued by the petitioners are dishonoured. In such
circumstances, I think the petitioners can be released on bail,
after imposing stringent conditions. There can be a direction to
the petitioners to surrender before the investigating officer for
interrogation. The investigating officer is free to recover the
documents, if any, in accordance with law.
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
2025:KER:6590
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 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
2025:KER:6590
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."
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.
10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above
decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this
case, these Bail Applications are allowed with the following
directions:
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
executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
2025:KER:6590
(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
them from disclosing such facts to the Court
or to any police officer.
4. Petitioners shall not leave India
without permission of the jurisdictional 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.
2025:KER:6590
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 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 the bail, if any of the above conditions
are violated. Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
