Muhammed Yoonus vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 5012 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5012 Ker
Judgement Date : 11 March, 2025

Kerala High Court

Muhammed Yoonus vs State Of Kerala on 11 March, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

BAIL APPL. NO. 3070 OF 2025             1




                                                   2025:KER:20807
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

   TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1946

                       BAIL APPL. NO. 3070 OF 2025

         CRIME NO.1614/2024 OF Nedumangad Police Station,

                              Thiruvananthapuram

PETITIONER/S:
          MUHAMMED YOONUS
          AGED 39 YEARS
          S/O SAYYID MUHAMMED ABDUL YASEEN RESIDING AT DARUL
          KARAM, BEACH ROAD, KOVALAM P.O, KOVALAM VILLAGE,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
          DISTRICT, PIN - 695527
          BY ADV MOHAMMED MUSHTHAQ S.
RESPONDENT/S:

             STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
             KERALA, PIN - 682031


OTHER PRESENT:

             SR PP- NOUSHAD K A


      THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.03.2025,      THE    COURT     ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 3070 OF 2025         2




                                                    2025:KER:20807

                     P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                   --------------------------------------
                       B.A. No. 3070 of 2025
                   --------------------------------------
               Dated this the 11th day of March, 2025



                              ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.

1614/2024 of Nedumangad Police Station. The above case is

registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable

under Secs. 314, 316(2), 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner

misused an ATM card entrusted to him by the complainant,

while going abroad. It is also alleged that, an Ashok Leyland

lorry worth Rs.80,00,000/- owned by the complainant and

used for the purpose of company was taken away by the

2025:KER:20807 petitioner.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the

Public Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the allegation against the petitioner is not correct. The

counsel submitted that even according to the defacto

complainant, the ATM card was entrusted to the petitioner.

The counsel for the petitioner is ready to abide any

conditions, if this Court grants him bail. The Public

Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the

petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the

allegations against the petitioner is very serious. But the fact

remains that the ATM card is entrusted to the petitioner by

the complainant because of his trust. Whether any criminal

offence is committed in the facts and circumstances of this

case is the matter of investigation. I do not want to make any

observation about the same. Considering the facts and

2025:KER:20807 circumstances of this case, I think the petitioner can be

released on bail, after imposing stringent conditions.

7. 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.

8. 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 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

2025:KER:20807 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."

9. 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.

10. 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:

1. The petitioner shall appear

2025:KER:20807 before the Investigating Officer within two

weeks from today and shall undergo

interrogation.

2. After interrogation, if the

Investigating Officer propose to arrest the

petitioner, he 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 petitioner shall appear

before the Investigating Officer for

interrogation as and when required. The

petitioner shall co-operate with the

investigation and shall not, directly or

indirectly make any inducement, threat or

promise to any person acquainted with the

2025:KER:20807 facts of the case so as to dissuade him from