B.A.No.3736 of 2025 1 2025:KER:29329 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 3736 OF 2025 CRIME NO.213/2025 OF MANNAR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3: 1 ANJUMOL P.A. AGED 30 YEARS W/O ARUN T.K, THALIYASSERY (H), EDATHIRINJI P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680122 2 ARUN T.K. AGED 37 YEARS S/O KUTTYKRISHNAN, THALIYASSERY (H), EDATHIRINJI P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680122 3 VIDYA.K. AGED 31 YEARS W/O PRASOON K.K, SREENILAYAM, SREEKANDAMANGALAM, ATHIRAMBUZHA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686562 BY ADVS. SAILAKSHMI MENON GEORGE ROY M.KIRANLAL AASHI K. SHAJAN DHILNA NAZRIN DILMAYA P. B.A.No.3736 of 2025 2 2025:KER:29329 RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 ABHIN A SUDHEER AGED 20 YEARS S/O SUDHEER, KILINNERIL(H), MANNAR, ALAPPUZHA., PIN - 689622 BY ADVS. HARIKRISHNAN MS VISHNU VIJAYAN(K/84/2020) PP – SRI. G SUDHEER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.3736 of 2025 3 2025:KER:29329 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- B.A.No.3736 of 2025 ------------------------------- Dated this the 04th day of April, 2025 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.213/2025 of Mannar Police Station, Alappuzha. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'). 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners induced the defacto complainant through deceit and false representation, claiming that they would arrange a job in Denmark for him and his friend. Based on this, on 08.03.2024, the defacto complainant and his friend transferred an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the 1st petitioner's bank account. The job was not provided and the amount was also not returned. Hence it is B.A.No.3736 of 2025 4 2025:KER:29329 alleged that the accused committed the above said offences. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant. 5. When this bail application came up for consideration before this Court on 27.03.2025, this Court passed the following order: “The petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer in Crime No.213 of 2025 of Mannar Police Station on 01.04.2025. The investigating officer can interrogate the petitioners. The petitioners shall not be arrested till the next posting date. The investigating officer will report before this Court whether the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary. Registry to issue this order to the Public Prosecutor, who will communicate the same to the investigating officer. Post on 04.04.2025.” 6. Today, when the matter came up for consideration, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners appeared before the Investigating Officer and further custodial interrogation is not necessary. If that be the case, B.A.No.3736 of 2025 5 2025:KER:29329 there can be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer once again to complete the procedures. After interrogation, if arrest is recorded, there can be a direction 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 B.A.No.3736 of 2025 6 2025:KER:29329 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 decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: B.A.No.3736 of 2025 7 2025:KER:29329 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 from B.A.No.3736 of 2025 8 2025:KER:29329 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 B.A.No.3736 of 2025 9 2025:KER:29329 information, if any, given by the petitioners even while the petitioners are 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]. 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