Kerala High Court
Rohit Dixit vs State Of Kerala on 12 June, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
BAIL APPL. NO. 6400 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:41530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 6400 OF 2025
CRIME NO.15/2023 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.03.2025 IN Bail Appl.
NO.2733 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
1 ROHIT DIXIT, AGED 24 YEARS
S/O RAM NARAYAN DIXIT, RANDHIRPUR,
CHHIBRAMAU, KANNAUJ, UTTAR PRADESH,
PIN - 209 727.
2 RAMNARAYAN DIXIT, AGED 58 YEARS
S/O RAMADHAR DIXIT, CHHIBRAMAU,KANNAUJ,
RANDHIRPUR, UTTAR PRADESH, PIN - 209 721.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.DINESH G WARRIER
SRI.JAYAN KUTTICHAKKU
SMT.ROSNA M. JOY
SHRI.JOHN CHRISTO T.P.
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFFICER
CYBER POLICE STATION THRISSUR RURAL,
PIN - 680125.
BY SRI. NOUSHAD K. A. - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.06.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 6400 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:41530
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A. No.6400 of 2025
...................................................
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioners are accused in Crime No.15/2023 of Cyber Crime Police
Station, Thrissur Rural; registered for the offences punishable under
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66(D) of the
Information Technology Act, 2000.
3. The prosecution case is that, during the period from 21.07.2023 to
31.07.2023, the accused with an intention to defraud the de facto
complainant, contacted her through whatsapp and telegram and offered
an online part-time job, and assured her a huge profit and dishonestly
induced her to transfer Rs.2,90,000/- to the bank accounts of the
accused, and cheated her and thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the
learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecution
allegations are false and that the incident as alleged had not occurred.
BAIL APPL. NO. 6400 OF 2025
2025:KER:41530
6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the
complaint against the petitioners is serious in nature and custodial
interrogation is essential.
7. Petitioners are alleged to have enrolled the defacto complainant through
whatsapp and telegram projecting huge earnings from an online
employment and disbursed small amounts to the defacto complainant as
payments for the work done, and thereby obtained her confidence, and
thereafter, compelled her to transfer Rs.2,90,000/- to different bank
accounts of the accused and later failed to return the money or provide
any employment and thereby committed criminal breach of trust and
cheating. The nature of the allegations indicates that the petitioners
were part of a racket indulging in cyber fraud. The various aspects of
the said fraudulent activity can be identified only through custodial
interrogation. If the petitioners are protected with an order of pre-arrest
bail, the investigation will be seriously prejudiced.
8. In the decision in P.Krishna Mohan Reddy v. The State of Andhra
Pradesh [2025 LiveLaw SC 598] the Supreme Court had observed that
custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than
questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order of
pre-arrest bail. It was also observed that success in interrogation will
elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and
insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. In
fact, the court went on to hold that insulating a person from arrest would
make his interrogation a mere ritual.
BAIL APPL. NO. 6400 OF 2025
2025:KER:41530
9. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that investigating officers'
hands ought not to be tied down by restricting custodial interrogation.
Considering the aforesaid circumstances, this is not a fit case to release
the petitioners on pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, this application is
dismissed.
However, in case the petitioners surrender before the Investigating
Officer and if they are arrested, they shall be produced before the
jurisdictional court without undue delay, and in case any application for
bail is filed, the court shall consider the same, in accordance with law.
sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
AMV/12/06/2025
BAIL APPL. NO. 6400 OF 2025
2025:KER:41530
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 6400/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 15 OF
2023 OF CYBER POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
DISTRICT DATED 05/08/2023.
ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 20/09/2024
SWORN AND FILED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN
CRL MC 9182 OF 2024.
ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL MC 9182 OF
2024 DATED 26/11/2024.
ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN BAIL APPLICATION
NO 2733/2025 DATED 05/03/2025.
ANNEXURE A5 SERIES NOTICES ISSUED TO PETITIONERS U/S 35(3) OF
BNSS DATED 17/04/2025.
