Kerala High Court
Sajith V.S vs State Of Kerala on 29 May, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
BAIL APPL. NO. 4967 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:37471
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 4967 OF 2025
CRIME NO.273/2025 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 24.03.2025 IN CRMC NO.227 OF
2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:
SAJITH V.S., AGED 29 YEARS
S/O SOMAN V.R, VIRUTHIPARAMBIL (H),
WAST KODALY, NILAMPATHI,
PADY P.O, MATTATHUR,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680 699.
BY ADVS.
JERRY MATHEW
TITTU JOSE CHACKANAD
DEVIKA K.R.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
SMT.MAYA M.N., PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.05.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 4967 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:37471
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A. No.4967 of 2025
...................................................
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner is the third accused in Crime No.273/2025 of Irinjalakuda Police
Station, Thrissur District; registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The prosecution case is that, accused, being a partner and manager of
an establishment, named, 'Billion Bees', collected an amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- with a promise that a profit of Rs.30,000/- will be
disbursed every month and after collecting the amount they failed to
disburse the promised profit and thereby committed the offences
alleged.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public
Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has
been falsely arrayed as an accused and has no involvement in the
alleged crime.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application
BAIL APPL. NO. 4967 OF 2025
2025:KER:37471
and submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in
nature and custodial interrogation is essential. It was submitted that the
accused is alleged to have projected themselves to an authorised
representative of an establishment and collected a large sum of money
with a promise to disburse profit of Rs.30,000/- per month. It was
further submitted that the recovery of the money borrowed by the
petitioner needs to be recovered, which requires thorough investigation
and custodial interrogation.
7. The circumstances pointed out in the FIR indicates that the accused is
alleged to have impersonated as an authorised representative of an
establishment and collected a large sum of money with a promise to
disburse profit. Having regard to the nature of transactions, I am of the
view that petitioner can be
8. In Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and
Another [(2020) 5 SCC 1], it was held that while considering whether to
grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by
considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role
attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. Grant of
anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to be
imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of each case,
and subject to the discretion of the court.
9. In Ashok Kumar v. State of Union Territory Chandigarh [2024 SCC
OnLine SC 274], it has been held that a mere assertion on the part of the
State while opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial
BAIL APPL. NO. 4967 OF 2025
2025:KER:37471
investigation is required would not be sufficient and that the State would
have to show or indicate more than prima facie case as to why custodial
investigation of the accused is required for the purpose of investigation.
In the instant case, the State has not been able to convince this Court
that custodial interrogation is necessary.
10. On a consideration of the circumstances arising in the case, this
Court is of the view that though the allegations are serious in nature,
custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Further, having
read to the nature of the offence and the severity of punishment,this
Court is of the view that petitioner is entitled to be released on pre-arrest
bail.
11. Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following
conditions:
(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on
16.06.2025 and shall subject himself to interrogation.
(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to
arrest the petitioner, then, he shall be released on bail on him
executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only)
with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before the
Investigating Officer.
(c) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and
when required and shall also co-operate with the investigation.
(d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the
witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence or contact the
victim or her family members;
BAIL APPL. NO. 4967 OF 2025
2025:KER:37471
(e) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on
bail.
(f) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the
Court having jurisdiction.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, or if any modification
or deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional Court shall
be empowered to consider such applications, if any, and pass appropriate
orders in accordance with law, notwithstanding the bail having been
granted by this Court.
sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
AMV/30/05/2025
BAIL APPL. NO. 4967 OF 2025
2025:KER:37471
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 4967/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CR. NO. 273/25 OF
IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
DISTRICT,
ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIS IN CR. NO. 273/25 OF
IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, DATED 14.02.2025
ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF THE
SESSIONS JUDGE, THODUPUZHA IN CRL.M.C. NO.
227/2025 DATED 24.03.2025
