Kerala High Court
Jayaseelan vs State Of Kerala on 3 July, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2025:KER:48842
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 7334 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1199/2024 OF VALIYATHURA POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED
29.05.2025 IN CRMC NO.1254 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT &
SESSIONS COURT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PETITIONER:
JAYASEELAN,
AGED 51 YEARS,
S/O. PARAMESWARAN ACHARI, DEVI KRIPA,
PERINGATTUKUZHI, BENEDICT NAGAR,
NALANCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT T.C.NO.3/1385,
GOLDEN VIEW, LEKSHMI NAGAR, LNU-19, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 015.
BY ADV SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682 031.
SRI. NOUSHAD K. A. (PP)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl. No.7334 of 2025
2025:KER:48842
-2-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------------
Bail Appl. No.7334 of 2025
------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1199 of 2024 of
Valiyathura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered for the
offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.
3. According to the prosecution, the accused had, with
intent to deceive the de facto complainant offered a 10% profit if
investment is made in Emirates Gold Souk Jewellery, and thereafter
collected an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- apart from 270.800 grams of
gold ornaments and failed to return the amount except for
Rs.15,000/- paid every month for a period of one year and failed to
repay the balance amount and thereby committed the offences
alleged.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner has been falsely arrayed as an accused and that he
2025:KER:48842
has no involvement in the alleged crime.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application and submitted that custodial interrogation is necessary.
7. Petitioner is alleged to have collected a large amount of
money and gold ornaments and promised to repay the same with
profit. However, after payment of Rs.15,000/- for a period of 12
months, he failed to repay the balance amount and thereby
committed the offences.
8. Though the allegations are serious in nature,
considering that the amount was collected in 2019 and for 12
months, a certain amount was paid by the petitioner, I am of the
view that the custodial interrogation can be avoided, since prima
facie, there is an element of civil dispute in the allegations. Of
course, those are matters are to be identified during the course if
investigation.
9. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020
(5) SCC 1, it was held that while considering whether to grant
anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by
considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the
role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. Grant of
anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions
to be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of
each case, and subject to the discretion of the court.
2025:KER:48842
10. In Ashok Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh,
[2024 SCC OnLine SC 274], it has been held that a mere assertion
on the part of the State while opposing the plea for anticipatory bail
that custodial interrogation is required would not be sufficient and
that the State would have to show or indicate more than prima facie
case as to why custodial interrogation of the accused is required for
the purpose of investigation.
11. In the instant case, the State has not been able to
convince this Court that custodial interrogation is necessary. On a
consideration of the circumstances arising in the case, this Court is
of the view that though the allegations are serious in nature,
custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Further,
having regard to the nature of the offence and the severity of
punishment,this Court is of the view that petitioner is entitled to be
released on pre-arrest bail.
Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following
conditions:
(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer
on 10.07.2025 and shall subject himself to interrogation.
(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer
proposes to arrest the petitioner, then, he shall be
released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties
each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer.
(c) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer
as and when required and shall also co-operate with the
investigation.
2025:KER:48842
(d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence
the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.
(e) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he
is on bail.
(f) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission
of the Court having jurisdiction.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any
modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the
jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such
applications, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with
law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
ADS
2025:KER:48842
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 7334/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.1199/2024 OF VALIYATHURA POLICE
STATION.
Annexure-B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/05/2025
IN CRL.M.C.NO.1254/2025 OF THE COURT OF
SESSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
