Kerala High Court

Sabu Basheer vs State Of Kerala on 28 March, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

BAIL APPL.Nos.2634,2577, 2579 OF 2025                 1



                                                     2025:KER:27187
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                        PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

      FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947

                        BAIL APPL. NO. 2577 OF 2025

       CRIME NO.127/2025 OF Atholy Police Station, Kozhikode

PETITIONER/S:

      1      SHAMEER SALAHUDHEEN
             AGED 32 YEARS
             S/O SALAHUDHEEN, SHAMEER MANZIL, VENCHEMP, PUNALUR,
             KOLLAM, PIN - 691333

      2      MISHAJUDHEEN
             AGED 38 YEARS
             S/O MAARI SAAHIB, KAIRALI NAGAR, AYATHIL, KOLLAM
             CITY, PIN - 691021


             BY ADVS.
             AMAL PARTHASARADHY
             GIBI.C.GEORGE


RESPONDENT/S:
     1    STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
          KERALA, PIN - 682031

      2      NISA
             AGED 45 YEARS
             D/O MOOSAKOYA, THAZHEPEEDIKAVEETTIL OLIVU,
             KONAGANNUR, ATHOLI P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673315
 BAIL APPL.Nos.2634,2577, 2579 OF 2025                        2



                                                                   2025:KER:27187
             BY ADVS.
             MUHAMMED SHAFI .M
             T.RASINI(K/000090/2017)
             ADHEELA NOWRIN(K/000855/2020)
             RAMEESA RASHEED(K/004484/2024)



OTHER PRESENT:

             sri.noushad.k.a, sr.pp


      THIS    BAIL    APPLICATION       HAVING   COME   UP   FOR    ADMISSION    ON
28.03.2025,      ALONG    WITH   Bail    Appl..2579/2025,        2634/2025,     THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL.Nos.2634,2577, 2579 OF 2025                 3



                                                          2025:KER:27187

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                        PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

      FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947

                        BAIL APPL. NO. 2579 OF 2025

       CRIME NO.128/2025 OF Atholy Police Station, Kozhikode

PETITIONER/S:

      1      SHAMEER SALAVUDHEEN
             AGED 32 YEARS
             S/O SALAVUDHEEN, SHAMEER MANZIL, VENCHEMPU, PUNALUR,
             KOLLAM, PIN - 691333

      2      MISHAJUDHEEN
             AGED 38 YEARS
             S/OMAARI SAHIB, KAIRALI NAGAR, AYATHIL, KOLLAM, PIN -
             691021


             BY ADVS.
             AMAL PARTHASARADHY
             GIBI.C.GEORGE




RESPONDENT/S:

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

      2      NISA K
             AGED 45 YEARS
             W/O ABDUL GAFOOR, THAZHEPEEDIKAVEETTIL OLIVU,
 BAIL APPL.Nos.2634,2577, 2579 OF 2025                        4



                                                    2025:KER:27187
             KONGANNUR, ATHOLI P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673315


             BY ADVS.
             MUHAMMED SHAFI .M
             T.RASINI(K/000090/2017)
             ADHEELA NOWRIN(K/000855/2020)
             RAMEESA RASHEED(K/004484/2024)



      THIS    BAIL    APPLICATION       HAVING   COME   UP   FOR    ADMISSION   ON
28.03.2025,      ALONG    WITH     Bail    Appl..2577/2025         AND   CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL.Nos.2634,2577, 2579 OF 2025                 5



                                                          2025:KER:27187

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                        PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

      FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947

                        BAIL APPL. NO. 2634 OF 2025

       CRIME NO.128/2025 OF Atholy Police Station, Kozhikode

PETITIONER/S:

             SABU BASHEER
             AGED 42 YEARS
             S/O BASHEER, PROPRIETOR YR TRADING, AYOOR,
             EDAMULAKKAL, KOLLAM CITY, PIN - 691306


             BY ADVS.
             AMAL PARTHASARADHY
             GIBI.C.GEORGE




RESPONDENT/S:

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

      2      NISA K
             AGED 45 YEARS
             D/O MOOSAKOYA, THAZHEPEEDIKAVEETTIL OLIVU, KONGANNUR,
             ATHOLI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673315


             BY ADVS.
             MUHAMMED SHAFI .M
 BAIL APPL.Nos.2634,2577, 2579 OF 2025                        6



                                                                   2025:KER:27187
             T.RASINI(K/000090/2017)
             ADHEELA NOWRIN(K/000855/2020)
             RAMEESA RASHEED(K/004484/2024)



      THIS    BAIL    APPLICATION       HAVING   COME   UP   FOR    ADMISSION   ON
28.03.2025,      ALONG    WITH     Bail    Appl..2577/2025         AND   CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL.Nos.2634,2577, 2579 OF 2025                     7



                                                              2025:KER:27187

                       P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                     --------------------------------------
               B.A. Nos. 2577, 2579 & 2634 of 2024
                ------------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 28th day of March, 2025



                                   ORDER

These Bail Applications 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 B.A No.2577/2025 are the

accused in Crime No.127/2025 of Atholy Police Station and

petitioners in B.A Nos. 2634/2025 & 2579/2025 are the accused

in Crime No.128/2025 of Atholy Police Station.

4. The allegation in Crime No.127/2025 is that,

the petitioner assured the defacto complainant that, they will

deliver household items to the establishment run by the defacto

complainant. It is alleged that the accused persons assured to

2025:KER:27187 the defacto complainant that, they will deal with all GST related

matters of the defacto complainant. It is alleged that accused

Nos.1 to 5 made fake bill of Rs.17,78,100/- in the name of the

defacto complainant's company, to the company's account with

an intention to cheat the defacto complainant and her husband.

5. The prosecution case in Crime No.128/2025 is

that, the accused Nos.1 to 4 assured the defacto complainant

from November 2023 onwards that, they will deliver household

items to the establishment run by the defacto complainant

named as "Olive Enterprises". It is alleged that the accused

persons assured to the defacto complainant that they will deal

with all GST related matters of the defacto complainant. It is

alleged that accused Nos.1 to 4 made fake bills of

Rs.99,65,662/- in the name of the defacto complainant's

company.

6. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public

Prosecutor.

2025:KER:27187

7. When these bail applications came up for

consideration, this Court passed the following order on

19.03.2025.

"Petitioners in these bail applications are the accused in Crime Nos.127/2025 & 128/2025 of Atholy Police Station.

2. When these bail applications came up for consideration, this Court directed the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer. Now, it is submitted that the petitioners were not able to appear before the Investigating Officer because they apprehend arrest in connection with another case. That is not a reason for not appearing before the Investigating Officer. When the petitioners are appearing before the Investigating Officer based on the order from this Court, the police officer cannot record the arrest of the petitioners in connection with another case. At this stage, the counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are ready to appear before the Investigating Officer once again.

3. If that be the case, the petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 24.03.2025. The petitioners shall not be arrested till the next posting date. Post on 28.03.2025."

8. Today, when the matter came up for

consideration, the Public Prosecutor submitted that no further

2025:KER:27187 custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary in these

crimes. There may be a direction to co-operate with the

investigation. If that is the case, there is no question of

custodial interrogation. The counsel appearing for the defacto

complainant seriously opposed the bail application. But, the

investigating officer submits before this Court that no custodial

interrogation is necessary. Therefore, the petitioners can be

directed to appear before the investigating officer once again to

complete the procedures. If the arrest is recorded, there can be

a direction to release the petitioners on bail, after imposing

stringent conditions.

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

2025:KER:27187 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 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

2025:KER:27187 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.

12. 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 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.

2025:KER:27187

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/her