Kerala High Court
Khader Hussain vs State Of Kerala on 7 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:19850
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2838 OF 2025
CRIME NO.25/2022 OF CBCID, THRISSUR, Thrissur
PETITIONER/S:
1 KHADER HUSSAIN
AGED 78 YEARS
PAROTHUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KATTUNGACHIRA, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680125
2 CHANDRIKA
AGED 73 YEARS
WIFE OF GOPALAKRISHNAN, CHERALA HOUSE,
MADAYIKONAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680712
3 ANITHA P B
AGED 50 YEARS
WIFE OF VIDYASAGAR, KUTTASSERY HOUSE, KARUVANNUR P
O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680711
BY ADVS.
JITHIN BABU A
ARUN SAMUEL
ANOOD JALAL K.J.
AMRITHA B.
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2025:KER:19850
BAIL APPL. NO.2838 OF 2025 & connected cases
2
SR PP-NOUSHAD K A
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.03.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..3242/2025, 3248/2025, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:19850
BAIL APPL. NO.2838 OF 2025 & connected cases
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3242 OF 2025
CRIME NO.30/2022 OF CBCID, THRISSUR, Thrissur
PETITIONER/S:
1 KHADER HUSSAIN
AGED 78 YEARS
PAROTHUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KATTUNGACHIRA, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680125
2 CHANDRIKA
AGED 73 YEARS
WIFE OF GOPALAKRISHNAN, CHERALA HOUSE,
MADAYIKONAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680712
3 ANITHA P B
AGED 50 YEARS
WIFE OF VIDYASAGAR, KUTTASSERY HOUSE, KARUVANNUR P
O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680711
BY ADVS.
JITHIN BABU A
ARUN SAMUEL
ANOOD JALAL K.J.
AMRITHA B.
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
2025:KER:19850
BAIL APPL. NO.2838 OF 2025 & connected cases
4
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SR PP, SEETHA.S
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.03.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2838/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:19850
BAIL APPL. NO.2838 OF 2025 & connected cases
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3248 OF 2025
CRIME NO.249/2021 OF CBCID, THRISSUR, Thrissur
PETITIONER/S:
1 KHADER HUSSAIN
AGED 78 YEARS
PAROTHUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KATTUNGACHIRA, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680125
2 CHANDRIKA
AGED 73 YEARS
WIFE OF GOPALAKRISHNAN, CHERALA HOUSE,
MADAYIKONAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680712
3 ANITHA P B
AGED 50 YEARS
WIFE OF VIDYASAGAR, KUTTASSERY HOUSE, KARUVANNUR P
O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680711
BY ADVS.
JITHIN BABU A
ARUN SAMUEL
ANOOD JALAL K.J.
AMRITHA B.
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
2025:KER:19850
BAIL APPL. NO.2838 OF 2025 & connected cases
6
KERALA, PIN - 682031
NOUSHAD.K.A, SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.03.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2838/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:19850
BAIL APPL. NO.2838 OF 2025 & connected cases
7
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.Nos.2838, 3242 & 3248 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 07th day of March, 2025
COMMON ORDER
These Bail Application are filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
2. These bail applications are connected and
therefore, I am disposing of these cases by a common order.
3. Petitioners in BA 2838/2025 are accused in
Crime No.25/2022 of CBCID, Thrissur, Petitioners in BA
No.3242/2025 are accused in Crime No.30/2022 of CBCID,
Thrissur and Petitioners in BA No.3248/2025 are accused in
Crime No.249/2021 of CBCID, Thrissur. These cases are
registered against the petitioners interalia under Sections
406, 420 465, 468, 471, 423 & 120B r/w Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and also Section 13(1)(c),(d), r/w 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act (for short PC Act) 1988 and
Section 13(1) (a) r/w 13(2) of the PC (Amendment) Act 2018.
2025:KER:19850
BAIL APPL. NO.2838 OF 2025 & connected cases
4. The prosecution case is that, members of
Board of Directors of Karuvannur Service Co-operative Bank
Ltd No.112, Karuvannur, in which fraudulent activities are
detected to have been committed. Accused Nos.1 to 6 with
dishonest intention to cheat the bank and depositors
deliberately violated the provisions of Kerala Co-operative
Societies Act and Rules committed forgery and
misappropriation and siphoned huge amount of bank. The
main allegations against the petitioners are they were former
Directors of the Board and in their such capacity, they
collided with the other accused in the alleged offence.
5. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the
Public Prosecutor.
6. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that
all the other accused released on bail by this Court. The same
is the allegations against the petitioners also.
7. Public Prosecutor also submitted that the
similarly placed accused were released on bail. But, Public
Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners may be directed to
2025:KER:19850
BAIL APPL. NO.2838 OF 2025 & connected cases
co-operate with the investigation.
8. After hearing both sides and also in the light
of the fact that the others with similar set of allegations were
already released on bail, I think, the petitioners also can be
released on bail.
9. 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.
10. 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.
"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
2025:KER:19850
BAIL APPL. NO.2838 OF 2025 & connected cases
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."
11. 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:
2025:KER:19850
BAIL APPL. NO.2838 OF 2025 & connected cases
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) 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 him from disclosing such
2025:KER:19850
BAIL APPL. NO.2838 OF 2025 & connected cases
facts to the Court 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
2025:KER:19850
BAIL APPL. NO.2838 OF 2025 & connected cases
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
SSG
