2025:KER:28156 BAIL APPL. NO. 3684 OF 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 3684 OF 2025 CRIME NO.889/2024 OF Mannarkkad Police Station, Palakkad AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.844 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER/PETITIONER: JINSHA K.S AGED 36 YEARS D/O SHAHADEVAN, MUNDORSSI HOUSE, THENNARI, MANNARKKAD P.O PALAKKAD, PIN - 678582 BY ADVS. RAFEEK. V.K. SALIM M.M. NISHNA P.T. LYDIA ELIZABETH KOVOOR ANNLIYA FLEMIN ABDULLA JAMAL MUHAMMED BILAL SHAHIM BIN AZIZ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MANNARGHAT POLICE STATION, MANNARGHAT, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678582 2025:KER:28156 BAIL APPL. NO. 3684 OF 2025 2 OTHER PRESENT: PP-G SUDHEER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:28156 BAIL APPL. NO. 3684 OF 2025 3 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- B.A.No.3684 of 2025 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 02nd day of April, 2025 ORDER This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioner is the 6th accused in Crime No.889/2024 of Mannarkkad Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner, who is the Public Relationship Officer in CVR Multy Speciality Hospital, Kunthipuzha, along with other accused who are the Chairman and Directors Board Members of CVR Multy Speciality Hospital, Kunthipuzha, made fake promise to share profit and provide free medical treatment to the complainant and his relatives in the hospital and thereby induced the complainant to deposit money in the hospital. the complainant, due to the above inducement gave a total amount of Rs.25 2025:KER:28156 BAIL APPL. NO. 3684 OF 2025 4 lakhs. But the accused did not return the money or gave the profit as promised. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is not correct. The petitioner was only an employee of the hospital. The petitioner was not in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the hospital. The counsel submitted that the main accused is already released on bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that there is allegation against the petitioner also that she collected money. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that there is allegation against the petitioner. But the fact remains that the main accused is already arrested and released. The petitioner was only a PRO of the hospital. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. 7. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that 2025:KER:28156 BAIL APPL. NO. 3684 OF 2025 5 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 arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between 2025:KER:28156 BAIL APPL. NO. 3684 OF 2025 6 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 decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think bail can be granted after imposing stringent conditions. 2025:KER:28156 BAIL APPL. NO. 3684 OF 2025 7 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 not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the 2025:KER:28156 BAIL APPL. NO. 3684 OF 2025 8 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 she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she 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 Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663]. 7. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding this bail 2025:KER:28156 BAIL APPL. NO. 3684 OF 2025 9 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