Judgment
2025:KER:28739 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4321 OF 2025 CRIME NO.287/2025 OF PETTA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 & 3:
1 BOBINA BOBBY AGED 46 YEARS W/O.MANOJ ABRAHAM, 06 A, ST.MARY’S LANE, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, PATTOM.P.O., KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004 2 PRATHEEP KUMAR AGED 61 YEARS S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, SYAMALALAYAM, VILAKKUDY.P.O., KUNNICODE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691508 BY ADVS.
SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY K.R.RIJA BREJITHA UNNIKRISHNAN SUDEESH K.E.
SURYA R.
PRAHLADH S.P.
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BAIL APPL. NO. 4321 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:28739 OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP-HRITHWIK C S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 4321 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:28739 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- B.A.No.4321 of 2025 ------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2025 O R D E R This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2.
Petitioners are accused in Crime No. 287 of 2025 of Petta Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
3.
The prosecution case is that the accused collected huge amount from the victim in this case promising Canada Visa. It is alleged that the Visa was not arranged and the amount is also not returned. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.
4.
Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.
5.
The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners collected the money from the victim and
BAIL APPL. NO. 4321 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:28739 it is handed over to one M/s.Great Time Enterprises based on Annexure-3 agreement. The petitioners were cheated by the above Company. The petitioners are taking steps to return the amount. A portion of the amount is paid to the defacto complainant. It is also submitted that the petitioners are taking steps to settle the matter with the defacto complainant.
6.
Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, he conceded that, as per the report received by him from the Investigating Officer, no criminal antecedents is alleged against the petitioner.
7.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioners are taking steps to settle the matter, I think the petitioners can be released on bail, after imposing 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
BAIL APPL. NO. 4321 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:28739 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.
“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-
BAIL APPL. NO. 4321 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:28739 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.
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 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
BAIL APPL. NO. 4321 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:28739 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 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
BAIL APPL. NO. 4321 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:28739 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 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
BAIL APPL. NO. 4321 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:28739 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 MSA
BAIL APPL. NO. 4321 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:28739 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 4321/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure -1 A TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.287/2025 OF PETTAH POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Annexure -2 A TRUE COPY OF THE GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 07.12.2023 Annexure-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT WITH M/S.GREAT TIME ENTERPRISES 27.12.2023 Annexure- 4 A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 28.08.2024 FROM ASTER MEDICITY Annexure- 5 A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 23.10.2024 FROM THE LAKESHORE HOSPITAL, ERANKULAM