Kerala High Court
Joyal George vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:22106
BAIL APPL. NO. 3162 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3162 OF 2025
CRIME NO.315/2025 OF Kottayam West Police Station, Kottayam
PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED:
JOYAL GEORGE
AGED 27 YEARS
SON OF SRI. GEORGIE, CAN ASSURE CONSULTANCY
SERVICES, OPPOSITE GENERAL HOSPITAL,
VELLAPPALLY LANE, KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN - 686001
BY ADVS.
LUKE J CHIRAYIL
ZAINUDHEEN P.
NAVANEETH KRISHNAN P.K.
ARAVIND R. NAIR
JACOB VICTOR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN - 686002
SRI HRITHWIK CS, SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:22106
BAIL APPL. NO. 3162 OF 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3162 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of March, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the 5th accused in Crime
No.315/2025 of Kottayam West Police Station. The above case
is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences
punishable under Sections 318 (4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita (for short, BNS).
3. A complaint has been filed by the defacto
complainant in which the allegation against the petitioner is like
this: The Petitioner, with the intention to cheat the first
informant and to obtain unlawful gain while causing unlawful
loss to him, operated a consultancy named CAN ASSURE
CONSULTANCY without valid immigration licence. The
petitioner, along with the other accused person, assured the
informant that they would secure an opportunity for the higher
2025:KER:22106
BAIL APPL. NO. 3162 OF 2025
studies and a job in the United States of America. Based on this
assurance, the informant transferred huge amount to the said
consultancy through different bank transactions. The first
informant thereby transferred a total amount of Rs.6,45,000/-.
Despite receiving this amount, the accused failed to provide the
promised job. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed
the offences.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
even if the entire allegations are accepted, the petitioner has
not committed any offence. The petitioner is the son of the 2 nd
accused and he is not involved in the day today affairs of the
company. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to
abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The Public
Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. This Court also perused
the prosecution case. After hearing both sides, I think custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. The petitioner
2025:KER:22106
BAIL APPL. NO. 3162 OF 2025
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
2025:KER:22106
BAIL APPL. NO. 3162 OF 2025
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."
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
2025:KER:22106
BAIL APPL. NO. 3162 OF 2025
decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this
case, I think bail can be granted after imposing stringent
conditions.
Therefore, 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
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
2025:KER:22106
BAIL APPL. NO. 3162 OF 2025
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 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
2025:KER:22106
BAIL APPL. NO. 3162 OF 2025
Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].
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.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
