Kerala High Court
Anumod vs State Of Kerala on 13 June, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bail Appl. No.6568 of 2025
2025:KER:42496
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 6568 OF 2025
CRIME NO.366/2025 OF PEROORKADA POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 10.06.2025
IN BAIL APPL. NO.6395 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
PETITIONER:
ANUMOD,
AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O PUSHPANGADAN, MAROTTIKKAL HOUSE,
KAZHIMBRAM, THRISSUR., PIN - 680 568.
BY ADV SRI.P.K.VARGHESE
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
SRI. NOUSHAD K.A. (PP)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl. No.6568 of 2025
2025:KER:42496
-2-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------------
Bail Appl. No.6568 of 2025
------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of June, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.366 of 2025 of
Peroorkada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered for the
offences punishable under sections 316(2) and 318(4) r/w Section 3(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').
3. The prosecution case is that, accused Nos.1 to 3 had in
furtherance of their common intention promised to arrange a job as
Warehouse Assistant in Poland, through an institution by name "Sansut
Global Private Limited", which is functioning under M/S. Casilda
Education Overseas Private Limited, and thereafter, on various occasions
from 21.08.2023 to 02.03.2024, collected a total sum of Rs.3,30,000/-
and thereafter, failed to provide the job as promised or return the money
to the defacto complainant, 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
2025:KER:42496
petitioner has been falsely arrayed as an accused and he has no
involvement in the alleged crime.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application
and submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.
7. Petitioner runs an establishment by name "Sansut Global
Private Limited" and claims that they have no role in procuring any
admission or employment for any person. According to the petitioner,
they act only as a liaison with a company called Casilda Education
Overseas Private Limited, who carries out the function of arranging
employment abroad. The de facto complainant is alleged to have
transferred Rs.3,30,000/- to Casilda Education Overseas Private Limited
and the petitioner had only recommended the de facto complainant's
name for obtaining the employment.
8. 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.
9. In Ashok Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh,
2025:KER:42496
[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. In the instant case, the State has not been able to convince
this Court that custodial interrogation is necessary.
10. Considering the aforesaid contentions and also on an
appreciation of the nature of the allegations levelled against the accused,
I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not
essential. However, the petitioner must appear before the Investigating
Officer for the purpose of completing the investigation.
Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following
conditions:
(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on
26.06.2025 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.
(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
2025:KER:42496
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:42496
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 6568/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 A COPY OF THE FIR DATED 17.03.2025 OF
PEROORKADA POLICE STATION IN CRIME
NO.366/2025.
Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.05.2025
IN CRL.MC NO. 1109/2025 OF THE SESSIONS
COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.04.2025
IN CRL.MC NO. 976/2025 OF THE SESSIONS
COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
