Kerala High Court
Ramesh K P vs State Of Kerala on 29 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:7175
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 9TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 6441 OF 2024
CRIME NO.944/2024 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2024 IN CRMC NO.996 OF 2024 OF
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
RAMESH K P
AGED 52 YEARS, S/O RAMAKRISHNAN KAPRASSERY HOUSE
KECHERY P.O THRISSUR, PIN - 680 501.
BY ADVS.
SRUTHY K.K
P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
P.M.RAFIQ
M.REVIKRISHNAN
AJEESH K.SASI
SRUTHY N. BHAT
RAHUL SUNIL
NANDITHA S.
SOHAIL AHAMMED HARRIS P.P.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031
BY ADV
HRITHWIK C.S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:7175
B.A No.6441 of 2024
:2:
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.6441 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime
No.944 of 2024 of Kunnamkulam Police Station. The
above case is registered against the petitioner alleging
offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and
420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), 1860.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused,
who was a Ward Member and Vice President of the
Planning Committee of Choondal Grama Panchayat, had
fraudulently obtained an amount of Rs.9,30,000/- from
the SB account of 'Choondal Grama Panchayat Nellu Vithu
Sambarana Vitharana Kendram' maintained at Indian
2025:KER:7175
Overseas Bank, Kechery Branch, by forging the signature
of the President and the Secretary of the said Grama
Panchayat by presenting four different cheques.
4. Heard Senior Counsel Adv. P.Vijayabhanu
assisted by Adv.Rahul Sunil for the petitioner and the
Senior Public Prosecutor.
5. Senior Counsel submitted that even if the
entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out.
The Senior Counsel also submitted that the maximum
punishment that can be imposed for the above offences
is upto 7 years. The Senior Counsel submitted that the
petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court
grants him bail.
6. Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application.
7. This Court considered the contentions of
the petitioner and the Senior Public Prosecutor. This bail
application is pending before this Court from 31.07.2024,
2025:KER:7175
no interim order was passed by this Court restraining the
arrest of the petitioner. Even now the petitioner is not
arrested. That itself shows that the custodial interrogation
of the petitioner is not necessary. Moreover, the
maximum punishment that can be imposed for the above
offences is upto 7 years. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another [(2014)
8 SCC 273] observed like this:
7.1. From a plain reading of the aforesaid
provision, it is evident that a person
accused of an offence punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may be less
than seven years or which may extend to
seven years with or without fine, cannot be
arrested by the police officer only on his
satisfaction that such person had
committed the offence punishable as
aforesaid. A police officer before arrest, in
such cases has to be further satisfied that
such arrest is necessary to prevent such
person from committing any further
offence; or for proper investigation of the
case: or to prevent the accused from
causing the evidence of the offence to
disappear; or tampering with such evidence
in any manner; or to prevent such person
from making any inducement, threat or
promise to a Witness so as to dissuade him
2025:KER:7175
from disclosing such facts to the court or
the police officer; or unless such accused
person is arrested, his presence in the court
whenever required cannot be ensured.
These are the conclusions, which one may
reach based on facts.
7.2. The law mandates the police officer to
state the facts and record the reasons in
writing which led him to come to a
conclusion covered by any of the provisions
aforesaid. while making such arrest. The
law further requires the police officers to
record the reasons in writing for not making
the arrest.
7.3. In pith and core, the police officer
before arrest must put a question himself,
why arrest? Is it really required? What
purpose it will serve? What object it will
achieve? It is only after these questions are
addressed and one or the other conditions
as enumerated above is satisfied, the
power of arrest needs to be exercised. In
fine, before arrest first the police officers
should have reason to believe on the basis
of information and material that the
accused has committed the offence. Apart
from this, the police officer has to be
satisfied further that the arrest is necessary
for one or the more purposes envisaged by
sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of
Section 41 Cr.P.C.
Keeping in mind the above principle, I am of the
considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the
2025:KER:7175
petitioner is not necessary. The prosecution can prove
the case through oral and documentary evidence. There
can be a direction to the petitioner to surrender before
the Investigating Officer. After interrogation, if arrest is
recorded, there can be a direction to release the
petitioner on bail.
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
2025:KER:7175
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
2025:KER:7175
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.
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.
2025:KER:7175
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 him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to
any police officer.
2025:KER:7175
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, or suspected, of the
commission of which he is 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
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].
2025:KER:7175
7. 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 the bail, if any of the above
conditions are violated.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
AMR
