Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4819 Ker
Judgement Date : 6 March, 2025
B.A.No.2725 of 2025 & contd cases
1
2025:KER:19269
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2725 OF 2025
CRIME NO.78/2025 OF VADAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1:
SHAKKEER @ SHAKKEER ANWARI
AGED 40 YEARS
C/O SHAKKEER E., BAITHUL ABRAR HOUSE, VALIYA
THAZHATH PARAMB, IRINGAL, KOZHIKODE, KERALA,
PIN - 673521
BY ADVS.
HAMZATH ALI V.K.
AYISHA AFRIN A.V.K.
MUHAMMAD SHAMEEL K.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 VADAKARA POLICE STATION
RAILWAY STATION RD, PUTHIYAPPU, VATAKARA,
KERALA, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY THE STATION
HOUSE OFFICER, PIN - 673101
BY ADV. SRI.G SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.03.2025, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..2719/2025, 2722/2025 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.2725 of 2025 & contd cases
2
2025:KER:19269
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2719 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1354/2024 OF VADAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1:
SHAKKEER @ SHAKKEER ANWARI
AGED 40 YEARS, C/O SHAKKEER E., BAITHUL ABRAR
HOUSE, VALIYA THAZHATH PARAMB, IRINGAL,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673521
BY ADVS.
HAMZATH ALI V.K.
AYISHA AFRIN A.V.K.
MUHAMMAD SHAMEEL K.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
1 VADAKARA POLICE STATION
RAILWAY STATION RD, PUTHIYAPPU, VATAKARA,
KERALA, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY THE STATION
HOUSE OFFICER, PIN - 673101
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV. SRI. NOUSHAD K.A., SENIOR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.03.2025, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..2725/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.2725 of 2025 & contd cases
3
2025:KER:19269
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2722 OF 2025
CRIME NO.18/2025 OF PAYYOLI POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.4:
SHAKKEER @ SHAKKEER ANWARI
AGED 40 YEARS, C/O SHAKKEER E., BAITHUL ABRAR
HOUSE, VALIYA THAZHATH PARAMB, IRINGAL,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673521
BY ADVS.
HAMZATH ALI V.K.
AYISHA AFRIN A.V.K.
MUHAMMAD SHAMEEL K.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
1 PAYYOLI POLICE STATION
PAYYOLI, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY THE STATION
HOUSE OFFICER, PIN - 673522
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV. SMT. SEETHA S, SENIOR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.03.2025, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..2725/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.2725 of 2025 & contd cases
4
2025:KER:19269
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2724 OF 2025
CRIME NO.843/2024 OF CHAKKARAKKAL POLICE SATION, KANNUR
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.4:
SHAKKEER @ SHAKKEER ANWARI
AGED 40 YEARS, C/O SHAKKEER E., BAITHUL ABRAR
HOUSE, VALIYA THAZHATH PARAMB, IRINGAL,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673521
BY ADVS.
HAMZATH ALI V.K.
AYISHA AFRIN A.V.K.
MUHAMMAD SHAMEEL K.
RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED NO.4:
1 CHAKKARAKKAL POLICE SATION
MOWANCHERI, IRIVERI, KANNUR, KERALA, REPRESENTED
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PIN - 670613
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SRI.G SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.03.2025, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..2725/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.2725 of 2025 & contd cases
5
2025:KER:19269
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2727 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1354/2024 OF VADAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.3:
HARIS
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O AMMED, EDACHERIVEETIL HOUSE, KATAMERI P.O.,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673521
BY ADVS.
HAMZATH ALI V.K.
AYISHA AFRIN A.V.K.
MUHAMMAD SHAMEEL K.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
1 VADAKARA POLICE STATION
RAILWAY STATION RD, PUTHIYAPPU, VATAKARA,
KERALA, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY THE STATION
HOUSE OFFICER, PIN - 673101
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SRI.NOUSHAD K.A., SENIOR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.03.2025, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..2725/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.2725 of 2025 & contd cases
6
2025:KER:19269
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2735 OF 2025
CRIME NO.78/2025 OF VADAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2:
HARIS
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O AMMED, EDACHERIVEETIL HOUSE, KATAMERI P.O.,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673521
BY ADVS.
HAMZATH ALI V.K.
AYISHA AFRIN A.V.K.
MUHAMMAD SHAMEEL K.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 VADAKARA POLICE STATION
RAILWAY STATION RD, PUTHIYAPPU, VATAKARA,
KERALA, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY THE STATION
HOUSE OFFICER, PIN - 673101
BY ADV.
SRI.G SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.03.2025, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..2725/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.2725 of 2025 & contd cases
7
2025:KER:19269
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2736 OF 2025
CRIME NO.18/2025 OF PAYYOLI POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.3:
HARIS
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O AMMED, EDACHERIVEETIL HOUSE, KATAMERI P.O.,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673521
BY ADVS.
HAMZATH ALI V.K.
AYISHA AFRIN A.V.K.
MUHAMMAD SHAMEEL K.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
1 PAYYOLI POLICE STATION
PAYYOLI, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY THE STATION
HOUSE OFFICER, PIN - 673522
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SRI.G SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.03.2025, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..2725/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.2725 of 2025 & contd cases
8
2025:KER:19269
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
----------------------------------------------------
B.A.Nos.2725, 2719, 2722, 2724,
2727, 2735 & 2736 of 2025
-----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 06th day of March, 2025
ORDER
These Bail Applications filed under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. These are
connected and therefore I am disposing of these bail
applications by a common order.
2. These bail applications are filed by one
Shakkeer @ Shakkeer Anwari and one Haris. Petitioners are
the accused in different crimes at Vadakara Police Station,
Payyoli Police Station and Chakkarakkal Police Station. The
above cases are registered against the petitioners alleging
offences punishable inter alia under Section 420 r/w 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case in all these cases, in
brief, is that the petitioners and other accused agreed to
arrange the travel of the defacto complainants for the Hajj B.A.No.2725 of 2025 & contd cases
2025:KER:19269
pilgrimage 2024 and collected a huge amount. However, the
accused cheated the defacto complainants by not facilitating
the trip nor returning the amount. Hence it is alleged that the
accused committed the above said offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
co-accused was already released on bail by this Court. The
counsel submitted that the petitioners and other accused are
trying to settle the matter and there is no cheating as alleged
by the prosecution. The counsel also submitted that the
petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation and
they are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant them
bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application and submitted that the petitioners are involved in
several cases.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It seems that the
allegation is that, after receiving the amount, the petitioners B.A.No.2725 of 2025 & contd cases
2025:KER:19269
and other accused were not able to take the defacto
complainants for Hajj pilgrimage. A perusal of the bail
application would show that the petitioners are trying to settle
all the issues. This Court granted bail to the co-accused
because of that reason. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that
the co-accused was already released on bail, I think, these bail
applications can be allowed on stringent conditions.
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 paragraph of the
above judgment is extracted hereunder. B.A.No.2725 of 2025 & contd cases
2025:KER:19269
"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 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 these cases,
these Bail Applications are allowed with the following B.A.No.2725 of 2025 & contd cases
2025:KER:19269
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/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each 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 B.A.No.2725 of 2025 & contd cases
2025:KER:19269
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.
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 B.A.No.2725 of 2025 & contd cases
2025:KER:19269
law, even though the bail is granted by this
Court. The prosecution and the victims 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 nvj
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!