BAIL APPL. NO. 3976 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:27181 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. 3976 OF 2025 CRIME NO.917/2025 OF CRIME BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, Thiruvananthapuram PETITIONER/S: SHYNY S. JOSE AGED 45 YEARS D/O SANTHA, CHAIRPERSON/TRUSTEE, MITHRAM CHARITABLE TRUST, TC. 52/1604, THYKOOTAM LAKSHAM VEEDU, PLANKALAMUKKU, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 695019 BY ADVS. ARUN CHAND PRAMOD S.K. VINAYAK G MENON BHARAT VIJAY P. THAREEQ ANVER K. K.SALMA JENNATH MINU VITTORRIA PAULSON ARCHANA P.P. SHEHROON PATEL A.K. RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BAIL APPL. NO. 3976 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:27181 2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CRIME BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695008 3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 695541 OTHER PRESENT: SR PP-NOUSHAD K A THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 3976 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:27181 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J –------------------------------------- B.A. No. 3976 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. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.172/2025 of Karamana Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 316(2) & 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'). 3. The prosecution case is that the accused person, in order to obtain unlawful gain with the intention of cheating the defacto complainant, delivered scooter to her at half the market price and received an amount of Rs.67,000/-. It is alleged that the BAIL APPL. NO. 3976 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:27181 accused failed to deliver the scooter as agreed. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said offences. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant her bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, in this case, the maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offences alleged are up to 7 years. Therefore, whether the arrest of the petitioner is necessary, is to be decided by the Investigating Officer in accordance with the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another [2014 (8) SCC 273]. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment: “7. xxxxxxxxx BAIL APPL. NO. 3976 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:27181 7.1. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that all person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. A police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case, or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the police officer, or unless such accused person is arrested, his conclusions, which one may reach based on facts. 7.2. The law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. The law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest. 7.3. In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. In fine, before arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the BAIL APPL. NO. 3976 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:27181 basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes, envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 CrPC.” 8. Therefore, whether the arrest of the petitioner is necessary or not, is to be decided by the Investigating Officer after interrogation. For that purpose, there can be a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer within three weeks from today. The petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer on consecutive days from 10 AM to 4 PM. During the above period, the petitioner shall not be arrested. After interrogation, if the arrest of the petitioner is not necessary, the Investigating Officer will do the needful in accordance with law. If the arrest of the petitioner is necessary, the Investigating Officer will strictly follow the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar's case (supra). After recording the arrest, the petitioner shall be produced before the jurisdictional court on the same day itself. At that time, the petitioner can file a bail application before the jurisdictional court with advance copy to the BAIL APPL. NO. 3976 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:27181 prosecutor concerned. If such a bail application is received, the jurisdictional court can consider the bail application on the date of filing of the same itself. The jurisdictional court shall consider the bail application in the light of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar's case (supra). Therefore, this bail application is disposed of with the following directions. 1) The petitioner will surrender before the Investigating Officer within three weeks from today. 2) If the petitioner surrender before the Investigating Officer as directed above, the Investigating Officer is free to interrogate the petitioner. The Investigating Officer is free to ask the petitioner to appear on consecutive days if necessary, but she shall not be arrested, till interrogation is over. 3) If the Investigating Officer feels that the arrest is inevitable, even after interrogation, the Investigating Officer shall follow the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar's case (supra) and shall produce the accused before the jurisdictional court on the date on which the arrest BAIL APPL. NO. 3976 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:27181 is recorded. 4) The petitioner is free to file bail application before the jurisdictional court at the time of producing her as directed above. If such a bail application is filed with advance copy to the prosecutor concerned, the jurisdictional court will consider that bail application in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders in it preferably on the date of filing of the same itself. While deciding the bail application, the jurisdictional court shall scrupulously consider whether the Investigating Officer followed the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar's case (supra). sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS