Kerala High Court

Vijayan Kannan vs State Of Kerala on 12 March, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                            2025:KER:21120
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

  WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2025/ 21ST PHALGUNA,

                             1946

                BAIL APPL. NO. 3132 OF 2025

 CRIME NO.62/2025 OF THADIYITTAPARAMBA POLICE STATION,

                         ERNAKULAM

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

          VIJAYAN KANNAN
          AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.K.KANNAN(LATE) , KERALA
          TRAVEL ZONE (P) LIMITED, 3RD FLOOR, YAMUNA
          ARCADE, KALLAI ROAD,. NEAR APSARA THEATRE,
          PALAYAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001

          BY ADVS.
          PRAKASH P.GEORGE
          SADER E.REAZ
          SAJID P.S.
          BIJU GEORGE
          ABIJITH M.



RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.

    2     THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
          THADIYATTAPARAMBA POLICE STATION,
          ERNAKULAM RURAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
          PIN - 683 105.
                                           2025:KER:21120
B.A No.3132 of 2025
                                 2
           BY ADV
           HRITHWIK.C.S, SR.PP


      THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                   2025:KER:21120
B.A No.3132 of 2025
                                   3


                  P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                --------------------------------
                   B.A.No.3132 of 2025
                 -------------------------------
         Dated this the 12th day of March, 2025


                             ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime

No.62 of 2025 of Thadiyattaparamba Police Station,

Ernakulam. The above case is registered against the

petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 406

and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

3. The prosecution case is that the

petitioner, who is the owner of Kerala Travel Zone Private

Limited, with the intention to make undue profit by

deception, promised to send the defacto complainant and

his wife on a Tour Package to Srilanka. It is alleged that

the petitioner collected an amount of Rs.1,38,000/- , but 2025:KER:21120

he failed to conduct the tour as promised and did not

return the amount.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the

Public Prosecutor.

5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is not

correct and the petitioner has not committed any offence.

It is only a monetary dispute. A cheque case is already

filed against the petitioner by the victim. The counsel

submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any

conditions, if this Court grants him bail.

6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the

petitioner is involved in yet another case with the same

allegations.

7. This Court considered the contention of

the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It seems that it

is a monetary dispute. According to the petitioner he is 2025:KER:21120

ready to settle the matter with the defacto complainant.

A cheque case is also pending before the Jurisdictional

Court. I do not want to make any observation about the

same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, I think the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is

not necessary. The bail can be granted to the petitioner

after imposing 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 2025:KER:21120

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 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 2025:KER:21120

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

this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the

following directions:

1. The petitioner shall appear before

the Investigating Officer within two

weeks from today and shall undergo 2025:KER:21120

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 facts of the

case so as to dissuade him from

disclosing such facts to the Court or to 2025:KER:21120

any police officer.

4. Petitioner shall not leave India

without permission of the jurisdictional

Court.

5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence

similar to the offence of which he is

accused, or suspected, of the

commission of which he is 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

petitioner even while the petitioner is 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].

2025:KER:21120

7. If any of the above conditions are

violated by the petitioner, the

jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in

accordance to 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.