B.A.No.4178 of 2025 1 2025:KER:28281 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. 4178 OF 2025 CRIME NO.672/2024 OF NAGAROOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: 1 SUDHA BABURAJ AGED 68 YEARS W/O.BABURAJ, ‘DAIVAKRIPA’, GATEMUKKU, ALTHRAMOODU P.O, NAGAROOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695102 2 BABURAJ AGED 77 YEARS S/O.DAMODHARAN, ‘DAIVAKRIPA’, GATEMUKKU, ALTHRAMOODU P.O, NAGAROOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695102 BY ADVS. MARIYA JOSE SAFNA P.S. RESPONDENT(S)/STATE: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 B.A.No.4178 of 2025 2 2025:KER:28281 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER NAGAROOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT -, PIN - 695601 BY ADV. SR PP – SRI. NOUSHAD K A THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.4178 of 2025 3 2025:KER:28281 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- B.A.No.4178 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. 2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.672/2024 of Nagaroor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is a case registered based on a private complaint filed before the jurisdictional magistrate court which was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 3. The prosecution case is that, the accused with an intention to cheat the defacto complainant in order to make illegal gain, misrepresented her and caused to believe her that 9.60 Ares of purambokku property belongs to the 1st accused and had shown bogus documents to her and thereby caused to pay B.A.No.4178 of 2025 4 2025:KER:28281 Rs.13 lakhs through bank transfer and cheques as sale proceeds for 12.10 Ares of property including the purambokku land and executed sale deed in her favour and thereby made illegal gain and hence committed the above offences. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are having title deeds. It is also submitted that a suit filed by the defacto complainant is pending before the Civil court for return of the sale consideration. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly the case was registered based on a private complaint filed before the jurisdictional court which was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After going through the pleadings, it is clear that the B.A.No.4178 of 2025 5 2025:KER:28281 prosecution can prove the case through oral and documentary evidences. No custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary. There can be a direction to the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer. After interrogation, if the arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to release the petitioners on bail. Therefore, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. 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. B.A.No.4178 of 2025 6 2025:KER:28281 “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 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. 11. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, B.A.No.4178 of 2025 7 2025:KER:28281 this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: 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 B.A.No.4178 of 2025 8 2025:KER:28281 facts of the case so as to dissuade them 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. 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 B.A.No.4178 of 2025 9 2025:KER:28281 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]. 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