Kerala High Court
Sundar Menon vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:25970
Bail Appl. Nos.3884, 3885, 3888 & 3892 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 3884 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1724/2024 OF Town West Police Station, Thrissur
PETITIONER/S:
SUNDAR MENON
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O CHANDRA SEKHARA MENON,
THEKKEADIYATTVEETTIL CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE &DESOM,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
BY ADV PREMCHAND M.
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
PP-G SUDHEER
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.03.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..3885/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:25970
Bail Appl. Nos.3884, 3885, 3888 & 3892 OF 2025
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 3885 OF 2025
CRIME NO.378/2025 OF Town West Police Station, Thrissur
PETITIONER/S:
SUNDAR MENON
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O CHANDRA SEKHARA MENON,
THEKKEADIYATTVEETTIL CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE &DESOM,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
BY ADV PREMCHAND M.
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
PP-SRI G SUDHEER
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.03.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..3884/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:25970
Bail Appl. Nos.3884, 3885, 3888 & 3892 OF 2025
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 3888 OF 2025
CRIME NO.448/2025 OF Town West Police Station, Thrissur
PETITIONER/S:
SUNDAR MENON
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O CHANDRA SEKHARA MENON, THEKKEADIYATTVEETTIL
CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE &DESOM, THRISSUR, PIN -
680001
BY ADV PREMCHAND M.
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
26.03.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..3884/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:25970
Bail Appl. Nos.3884, 3885, 3888 & 3892 OF 2025
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 3892 OF 2025
CRIME NO.499/2025 OF Town West Police Station, Thrissur
PETITIONER/S:
SUNDAR MENON
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O CHANDRA SEKHARA MENON, THEKKEADIYATTVEETTIL
CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE &DESOM, THRISSUR, PIN -
680001
BY ADV PREMCHAND M.
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP-HRITHWIK C S
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.03.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..3884/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:25970
Bail Appl. Nos.3884, 3885, 3888 & 3892 OF 2025
5
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A.Nos.3884, 3885, 3888 & 3892 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of March, 2025
ORDER
These Bail Applications filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are connected and
therefore, I am disposing these bail applications by a common
order.
2. Petitioner in these cases are one and the same.
He is an accused in Crime Nos.1724/2024, 378/2025, 448/2025
and 499/2025 of Thrissur Town West Police Station. Above
cases are registered against the petitioner alleging offences
punishable under Sections 406 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and also under the provisions of the Banning of
Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019.
3. The common allegations in these cases is that
the petitioner persuaded and induced the defacto complainant
to make deposits with Heewan Nidhi Limited and Heewan
Finance Limited, a company registered under the Companies
Act. It is also alleged that the petitioner through the said
2025:KER:25970
Bail Appl. Nos.3884, 3885, 3888 & 3892 OF 2025
company offered high rate of interest and received huge
amounts from the depositors and cheated them without
repayment as promised. Hence it is alleged that accused
committed the above said offences.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
several cases are registered against the petitioner and the
petitioner was in custody for a long period in connection with
cases registered with same set of facts. This Court released the
petitioner on bail after imposing stringent conditions. Now the
petitioner filing these bail applications under Section 482 of
BNSS apprehending arrest in Crime Nos.1724/2024, 378/2025,
448/2025 and 499/2025 of Thrissur Town West Police Station.
6. Since the petitioner was in custody in
connection with the cases registered with same set of facts for a
long period, I am of the considered opinion that the continued
detention of the petitioner in these cases is not necessary. Since
no purpose will be served in sending the petitioner to jail again,
the petitioner can be directed to surrender before the
2025:KER:25970
Bail Appl. Nos.3884, 3885, 3888 & 3892 OF 2025
Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer can
interrogate the petitioner. After interrogation, if arrest is
recorded, there can be a direction to the Investigating Officer to
release the petitioner 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
2025:KER:25970
Bail Appl. Nos.3884, 3885, 3888 & 3892 OF 2025
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."
9. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of
Investigation [2023 KHC 6961], the Apex Court observed
2025:KER:25970
Bail Appl. Nos.3884, 3885, 3888 & 3892 OF 2025
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, these Bail Applications are 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-
2025:KER:25970
Bail Appl. Nos.3884, 3885, 3888 & 3892 OF 2025
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 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 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 petitioner
even while the petitioner is on bail as laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
2025:KER:25970
Bail Appl. Nos.3884, 3885, 3888 & 3892 OF 2025
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of
Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].
7. The observations and findings in this order
is only for the purpose of deciding this bail
application. The principle laid down by this
Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala
[2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable
in this case also.
8. 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
