BA No.4355 of 2025 1 2025:KER:29528 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4355 OF 2025 CRIME NO.729/2024 OF Palakkad Town South Police Station, Palakkad PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 5: 1 M/S. VISION INDIA CHARITABLE TRUST AGED 46 YEARS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHARIAMAN VINO PAUL, D. NO. XIV/430, THEKKUMKUDIYIL HOUSE, VALKULAMBU, KORENCHIRA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678684 2 VINO PAUL AGED 46 YEARS S/O. T.V. PAULOSE, CHAIRMAN OF VISION INDIA CHARITABLE TRUST, D. NO. XIV/430, THEKKUMKUDIYIL HOUSE, VALKULAMBU, KORENCHIRA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678684 3 T.V. PAULOSE AGED 67 YEARS S/O. VARGHESE, PRESIDENT OF VISION INDIA CHARITABLE TRUST, D. NO. XIV/430, THEKKUMKUDIYIL HOUSE, VALKULAMBU, KORENCHIRA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678684 4 SHEENA PAUL AGED 45 YEARS D/O. A.I. PAUL, TREASURER OF VISION INDIA CHARITABLE TRUST, D. NO. XIV/430, THEKKUMKUDIYIL HOUSE, VALKULAMBU, KORENCHIRA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678684 BA No.4355 of 2025 2 2025:KER:29528 5 BABU M.P. AGED 62 YEARS S/O. M.C. PAULOSE, TRUSTEE OF VISION INDIA CHARITABLE TRUST, MAMBILLY HOUSE, KOTTADY, KORENCHIRA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678684 BY ADV SHABU SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PALAKKAD BRANCH, M.A. COMPLEX, T.B. ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678014 BY ADV.: PP - G SUDHEER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BA No.4355 of 2025 3 2025:KER:29528 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- BA No.4355 of 2025 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 04th day of April, 2025 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. 2. This bail application is filed, apprehending arrest by petitioners 2 to 5 in Crime No.729/2024 of Town South Police Station, Palakkad. Now, the case is transferred to Crime Branch Police, Palakkad as Crime No.722/CB/PKD/R/2025. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 403, 406 & 420 r/w 34 of IPC. The case was registered based on a private complaint filed before the jurisdictional court which BA No.4355 of 2025 4 2025:KER:29528 was forwarded under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners 2 to 5 who were managing the affairs of the 1st petitioner firm, availed a loan to the tune of 3 crores on different occasions for the period from 24.03.2011 to 02.09.2011 for the purpose of distributing to the members of microfinance women beneficiaries SHG in rural area. But, without making such distribution, they misused the said amount by purchasing properties in their names and thereby violated the conditions of loan agreement. It is also alleged that, they filed wrong statements to the bank and without repaying the loan amount, they caused severe loss to the bank and thereby committed the above offence. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and also the Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd BA No.4355 of 2025 5 2025:KER:29528 respondent. 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 ready to co-operate with the investigation and they are ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court, if this Court grant them bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor and the Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent opposed the bail application. They submitted that serious allegations are there against the petitioners. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners, the Public Prosecutor and the 2nd respondent. It is true that the allegation against the petitioners are serious. But, the case is registered based on a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent which was forwarded under Section BA No.4355 of 2025 6 2025:KER:29528 156(3) of Cr.PC. The prosecution can prove the case through oral and documentary evidence. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary. There can be a direction to the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer and after interrogation, if arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to release the petitioners on bail. 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. BA No.4355 of 2025 7 2025:KER:29528 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 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 BA No.4355 of 2025 8 2025:KER:29528 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. 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 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, BA No.4355 of 2025 9 2025:KER:29528 they 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 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 facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 4. Petitioners shall not leave India BA No.4355 of 2025 10 2025:KER:29528 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 necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioners even while the BA No.4355 of 2025 11 2025:KER:29528 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 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