BA No.4003 of 2025 1 2025:KER:27122 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. 4003 OF 2025 CRIME NO.179/2025 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2: SASIDHARA PANIKER AGED 73 YEARS, S/O KUTTAN PILLAI , RESIDING THRIKARATHIKA, THULAMPARAMBU NADUVATHUM MRURI , MANNARASALA P.O, HARIPAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 690 514 BY ADV TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL) RESPONDENT ( S )/STATE : 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR, PIN – 670 002 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: BA No.4003 of 2025 2 2025:KER:27122 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- BA No.4003 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 (BNSS), 2023. 2. Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.179/2025 of Kannur Town Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner and another alleging offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 3. The petitioner is a retired CBI officer, who is the President of the Himalayan Yogavidya BA No.4003 of 2025 3 2025:KER:27122 Meditation and Charitable Trust. The prosecution case is that, on 2022 onwards, the accused persons who are in charge of Himalayan Third Eye Trust, conducted classes to obtain universal energy. It is alleged that the defacto complainant paid huge amount. It is alleged that the petitioner and the other accused cheated the defacto complainant. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out. It is also submitted by the petitioner that the 1st accused assured the defacto complainant and others that he will give meditation. The petitioner has no connection with the 1st accused and after that incident 1st accused was not allowed to take class. The counsel submitted that the petitioner BA No.4003 of 2025 4 2025:KER:27122 is now aged 72 years. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court, if this Court grants him bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Even if the entire allegations are accepted, whether the ingredients of Section 318(4) of BNS is made out is a matter to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. I don’t want to make any observation about the same. But, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. The petitioner can be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer. After interrogation, if arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to release the petitioner on bail. BA No.4003 of 2025 5 2025:KER:27122 8. 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. 9. 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 BA No.4003 of 2025 6 2025:KER:27122 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.” 10. 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. BA No.4003 of 2025 7 2025:KER:27122 Considering the dictum laid down in the above decisions and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following conditions: 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 BA No.4003 of 2025 8 2025:KER:27122 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 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 he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. 6. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding BA No.4003 of 2025 9 2025:KER:27122 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 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]. 8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional court can cancel the bail in BA No.4003 of 2025 10 2025:KER:27122 accordance to law, even though this bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN nvj JUDGE