B.A.No.2425 of 2025 1 2025:KER:26979 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. 2425 OF 2025 CRIME NO.150/2025 OF ARUVIKKARA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER(S)/13TH ACCUSED: 1 SHAFFI MM AGED 57 YEARS S/O LATE.MUHAMMED ABDUL KHADER, LAVETTI KUZHIYIL ANNEX,PANGODE PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695609 2 S. ANILKUMAR @ VEMBAYAM ANILKUMAR AGED 64 YEARS S/O S SUKUMARAN, NEW BUNGLOW, KOPPAM, PIRAPPANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695607 BY ADVS. C.R.SIVAKUMAR – P1 BINI KRISHNA SUBHAJA P. ANJALI C. S.SOORYA GAYATHRY HARI R. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,SR - P2 SMT.NAMITHA PHILSON-P2 RESPONDENT(S): STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 B.A.No.2425 of 2025 2 2025:KER:26979 BY ADV. SR PP-HRITHWIK C S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.2425 of 2025 3 2025:KER:26979 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- B.A.No.2425 of 2025 ------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2025 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioners are accused Nos.13 & 15 in Crime No.150/2025 of Aruvikkara Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 409 & 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The prosecution case is that, during the period from 01.04.2021 to 31.05.2024, while working with the staff and others of Rajiv Gandhi Residence Welfare Co-operative Society, Nedumangad Taluk, where the complainant served as a part-time administrator, the petitioners, with the intention to cheat and defraud the investors of the said group, misappropriated an amount of Rs.24,74,21,480/-(Rupees Twenty-Four Crores Seventy- B.A.No.2425 of 2025 4 2025:KER:26979 Four Lakhs Twenty-One Thousand Four Hundred and eighty only). Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said offences. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. This Court earlier considered the bail application of the Secretary of the Society and that bail application was already disposed of. The petitioners are accused Nos.13 and 15. The 1st petitioner is the Grama Panchayath President and the 2nd petitioner is the District Panchayath Member. When this bail application came up for consideration on 19.03.2025, this Court passed the following order: “The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 24.03.2025. The Investigating Officer can interrogate the petitioners and he will submit a report before this Court whether custodial interrogation of the petitioners are necessary. The petitioners shall not be arrested till the next posting date. Post on 28.03.2025.” 6. Today, when the matter came up for consideration, both sides submitted that the petitioners appeared before the Investigating Officer. The Public Prosecutor submitted B.A.No.2425 of 2025 5 2025:KER:26979 that the statement of the petitioners were already recorded. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners did not cooperate with the investigation. The prosecution can prove the case through oral and documentary evidences. Simply because an accused in a criminal case is not cooperating with the investigation, this Court cannot deny bail to the petitioners. There can be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when required. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think this bail application can be allowed on 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 B.A.No.2425 of 2025 6 2025:KER:26979 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.” 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 B.A.No.2425 of 2025 7 2025:KER:26979 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) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned. 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 them B.A.No.2425 of 2025 8 2025:KER:26979 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 5. Petitioners 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. 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. 7. 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 petitioners even while the petitioners are on bail as laid down by B.A.No.2425 of 2025 9 2025:KER:26979 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663]. 8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, 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, JUDGE DM