BAIL APPL. NO. 3932 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:26546 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 3932 OF 2025 CRIME NO.113/2025 OF Mulanthuruthy Police Station, Ernakulam PETITIONER/S: 1 NASEEB MUHAMMED RIFAY K. A S/O K. H ABDUL KAREEM AGED 36 YEARS ARYACHERIYIL, HOUSE, NADACKAL P.O, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686121 2 AJEENA V.M, W/O NASEEB AGED 30 YEARS ARYACHERIYIL HOUSE, NADACKAL P.O, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686121 BY ADVS. HAPPYMON BABU BLESSY MARY SEBASTIAN ATHUL M. JOSHEY RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682314 BAIL APPL. NO. 3932 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:26546 OTHER PRESENT: SR PP-HRITHWIK C S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 3932 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:26546 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J –------------------------------------- B.A. No. 3932 of 2025 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March, 2025 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 113/2025 of Mulanthuruthy Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Secs. 316(2), 316(5), 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 3. The prosecution case is that the 1st petitioner was working as a Marketing Manager in Silver Kitchen Outdoor Caterers. It is alleged that, while the petitioners were working as staff, with an intention to cheat the company, in connection with the marriage of the son of one Ramadas, after collecting a BAIL APPL. NO. 3932 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:26546 cheque for Rs.4,17,000/-, the same was honoured through the personal account of the 1st petitioner. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offences alleged are not attracted. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that no criminal antecedents are alleged against the petitioner. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioners are serious. But, the prosecution can prove the case through oral and documentary evidence. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not necessary. The petitioners can be directed to surrender before BAIL APPL. NO. 3932 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:26546 the investigating officer. After interrogation, if the arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to the petitioner 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3932 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:26546 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: 1. The petitioners shall appear BAIL APPL. NO. 3932 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:26546 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. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3932 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:26546 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. 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 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663]. BAIL APPL. NO. 3932 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:26546 7. 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. 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 SKS