2025:KER:30626 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4484 OF 2025 CRIME NO.1157/2024 OF Edakkara Police Station, Malappuram PETITIONER/S: ANIL KUMAR AGED 49 YEARS S/O DIVAKARAN, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARAPPURAM.P.O, MOOTHEDAM VILLAGE, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679331 BY ADVS. V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH RALPH RETI JOHN VISHNU CHANDRAN GIRIDHAR KRISHNA KUMAR GEETHU T.A. MARY GREESHMA LIZ JOHNY KRISHNAPRIYA SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 PP-SSENA C THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:30626 BAIL APPL. NO.4484 OF 2025 2 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- B.A.No.4484 of 2025 ------------------------------- Dated this the 08th day of April, 2025 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). 2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.1157/2024 of Edakkara Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 420 r/w 34 IPC and Section 6 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (BUDS Act). 3. The prosecution case is that; the petitioner along with the other accused induced the defacto complainant to invest a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- in M/s. Lailak Gold, Edakkara by promising substantial profit shares. It is further alleged that in July, 2023, the jewellery business was shut down without disbursing any profits or returning the invested amount to the defacto complainant. It is alleged that the accused misappropriated the said amount. Hence, it is 2025:KER:30626 BAIL APPL. NO.4484 OF 2025 3 alleged that the accused committed the offences. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant invested the amount in the partnership firm. Subsequently, because of some financial difficulty, there was loss to the business establishment. Hence, the amount is not returned. The counsel submitted that, no criminal offence is made out. Only civil liability is there, if at all. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that there are several victims in this case. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The admitted prosecution case is that the defacto complainant invested some amount in a partnership business, expecting profit. The business met with some loss. In such circumstances, the deposited amount or the profit is not returned. In such circumstances, whether any criminal offence is made out, is a 2025:KER:30626 BAIL APPL. NO.4484 OF 2025 4 matter to be investigated. I do not want to make any observation about the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the petitioner can be directed to surrender before the investigating officer. The investigating officer can interrogate the petitioner. After interrogation, if arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to release the petitioner on bail after imposing stringent conditions. 7. 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. 8. 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 2025:KER:30626 BAIL APPL. NO.4484 OF 2025 5 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 appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.” 9. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2023 KHC 6961], the Apex Court observed 2025:KER:30626 BAIL APPL. NO.4484 OF 2025 6 that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case. 10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, these Bail Applications are allowed with the following directions: 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 as and when required. The petitioner shall 2025:KER:30626 BAIL APPL. NO.4484 OF 2025 7 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 them 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. 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 2025:KER:30626 BAIL APPL. NO.4484 OF 2025 8 Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663]. 7. 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 SSG