BAIL APPL. NO. 4206 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:28383 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. 4206 OF 2025 CRIME NO.179/2025 OF PATANAKKAD POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA PETITIONER(S)/3RD ACCUSED: SEETHA.N.R, AGED 54 YEARS W/O RAJU.P, S.R.VILLA, WARD NO. XXI, CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY, CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA (PO), ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688524 BY ADVS. SUNEESH KUMAR R. B.BIPIN RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PATTANAKAD POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 688530 3 THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PATTANAKAD BRANCH, PATTANAKKAD, ALAPPUZHA (IS SUOMOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE BAIL APPLICATION AS PER ORDER DATED 02.04.2025). BY ADV. SRI.G SUDHEER, PP SRI. SALIL NARAYANAN, SC - KSFE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 4206 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:28383 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J –------------------------------------- B.A. No. 4206 of 2025 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 02nd day of April, 2025 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. The petitioner is an accused in crime No. 179/2025 of Pattanakkadu Police Station, Alappuzha. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Secs.120-B, 409, 419, 465, 468, 471 & 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The prosecution case is that, accused Nos.1 to 3, with the intention to get wrongful gain, committed criminal conspiracy to misappropriate money from the KSFE, Pattanakad branch wherein the de-facto complainant is the Manager, the 3rd accused issued forged salary certificate being the Headmistress of Town LP School, Cherthala, Alappuzha BAIL APPL. NO. 4206 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:28383 District, in the name of the 2nd accused by personating her as teacher of the said school. It is further alleged that when the forged salary certificate was sent for confirmation, the 3rd accused gave confirmation and based on that confirmation, an amount of Rupees four lakh was sanctioned to the 1st accused and the amount was transferred to the account of the 1st accused maintained at the Pattanakad branch of SBI and thus the accused cheated the KSFE and the defacto complainant. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner, the Public Prosecutor and the Standing Counsel appearing for the KSFE. 5. When this case came up for consideration, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire amount due to the KSFE is paid by the petitioner-applicant. This Court directed the Standing Counsel to verify the same. The Standing Counsel submitted that the entire amount due to the KSFE is paid. If that is the case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary. The petitioner can be directed to appear before the investigating officer. After interrogation, if BAIL APPL. NO. 4206 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:28383 the arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to release the petitioner on bail, after imposing stringent conditions. 6. 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. 7. 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 accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made BAIL APPL. NO. 4206 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:28383 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.” 8. 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. 9. 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 petitioner shall appear BAIL APPL. NO. 4206 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:28383 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, she 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 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/her BAIL APPL. NO. 4206 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:28383 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 she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is 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 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]. 7. The observations and findings in BAIL APPL. NO. 4206 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:28383 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 petitioner, 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