2025:KER:30243 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. 4608 OF 2025 CRIME NO.547/2025 OF Irinjalakuda Police Station, Thrissur PETITIONER/S: 1 HARIDAS @ HARI SWAMI AGED 60 YEARS PAPULLI HOUSE, PERIJANAN P.O, THRISSUR,, PIN - 680686 2 JISHA, W/O JOSHY, AGED 44 YEARS MANAMPURACKAL HOUSE KALLADA ROAD THANISERRY P O MANAVALASSERY, THANISSERRY MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR,, PIN - 680701 BY ADVS. V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN M.V.DAS S.JAYAKUMAR R.RAJASREE (CHUTTIMATTATHIL) LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN C.SWAMINATHAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER IRIJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, PIN - 680125 SR PP-NOUSHAD K A THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:30243 BAIL APPL. NO.4608 OF 2025 2 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- B.A.No.4608 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. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 547/2025 of Irinjalakuda Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioners received Rs.10 lakhs from the defacto complainant assuring him of getting ten times the money advanced. It is stated that the above amount is collected for remitting the tax and other arrears of some unidentified deceased person, who died intestate, who belongs to a trust named Rajarajeswari Madom in Kolkatta. The amount was paid by the defacto complainant. The amount was not returned and the ten times 2025:KER:30243 BAIL APPL. NO.4608 OF 2025 3 amount is also not received. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 5. It is surprising to see how the defacto complainant paid such a huge amount without any security and based on the assurance from the accused that he will get ten times the amount. I do not want to make any further opinion about the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not necessary. Petitioners can be released 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 2025:KER:30243 BAIL APPL. NO.4608 OF 2025 4 that the accused has7. 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. 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 bec7. 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.omes 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.7. 2025:KER:30243 BAIL APPL. NO.4608 OF 2025 5 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. (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. 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: 2025:KER:30243 BAIL APPL. NO.4608 OF 2025 6 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) 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 2025:KER:30243 BAIL APPL. NO.4608 OF 2025 7 so as to dissuade him 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. 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 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]. 7. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding this 2025:KER:30243 BAIL APPL. NO.4608 OF 2025 8 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 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 SSG