BA No.4165 of 2025 1 2025:KER:28291 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. 4165 OF 2025 CRIME NO.195/2015 OF Cumbummettu Police Station, Idukki PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.32: MOHANAN @ KATTUVAKKEEL AGED 74 YEARS, S/O. RAGHAVAN, ERATHOTTU HOUSE, CHELLARKOVIL P.O, CHELLARKOVIL, ANAKKARA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT., PIN - 685512 BY ADVS. V.H.JASMINE GILDA DAVIS JOHIN JOHNSON JIBI JOHNSON RESPONDENT ( S )/COMPLAINANT : STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682031 BY ADV. : PP - G SUDHEER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BA No.4165 of 2025 2 2025:KER:28291 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- BA No.4165 of 2025 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 02nd day of April, 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 accused No.32 in Crime No.195/2015 of Cumbummettu Police Station, Idukki. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 465, 466, 468, 471, 474, 477(A) and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner along with other accused forged fake pattas of BA No.4165 of 2025 3 2025:KER:28291 properties of which they do not possess title and thus committed the offence. 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 against the petitioner. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation and he is ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court, if this Court grant him bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the above case is registered in the year 2015. So far the petitioner is not arrested. That itself shows that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not BA No.4165 of 2025 4 2025:KER:28291 necessary. The offences alleged against the petitioner are forgery and conspiracy. The prosecution can prove the same through oral evidence. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary. There can be a direction to the petitioner to co-operate with the investigation. 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 BA No.4165 of 2025 5 2025:KER:28291 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 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 BA No.4165 of 2025 6 2025:KER:28291 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. 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 BA No.4165 of 2025 7 2025:KER:28291 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 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. BA No.4165 of 2025 8 2025:KER:28291 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 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 BA No.4165 of 2025 9 2025:KER:28291 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 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