Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 396 (KER)

VIJI SASI W/o SASI v. STATE OF KERALA

2025-02-27

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

body2025
ORDER These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita . These bail applications are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these bail applications by a common order. 2. Petitioners are accused in different crimes of different Police Stations. The petitioners in B.A. No.2006/2025 is an accused in Crime No.157/2025 of Anthikad Police Station, petitioner in B.A. No.2067/2025 are the accused in Crime No.95/2025 of Mannar Police Station, petitioner in B.A. No.2074/2025 is an accused in Crime No.94/2025 of Mannar Police Station, petitioners in B.A. No.2083/2025 are the accused in Crime No.80/2025 of Mannar Police Station, petitioners in B.A. No.2089/2025 are the accused in Crime No.178/2025 of Adimaly Police Station, petitioner in B.A. No.2091/2025 is an accused in Crime No.168/2025 of Kannur Town Police Station, petitioner in B.A. No.2108/2025 are the accused in Crime No.150/2025 of Balussery Police Station, petitioner in B.A. No.2286/2025 is an accused in Crime No.200/2025 of Kothamangalam Police Station. 3. The brief facts in almost all the cases are as follows: There is an offer from the accused to the victims in these cases that they will provide scooter, home appliances, laptop, water tank, grocery kits etc. with 50% subsidy from CSR fund. Therefore, the victims paid huge amounts to the accused. But the assured articles were not supplied and the amount was also not returned. Therefore, these cases are registered. The petitioners herein are not the main accused in all these cases. The allegation against the petitioners in these cases is that they collected the amount and entrusted it to the main accused and the main accused misappropriated the amount. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant them bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, in all these cases, the maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offences alleged are up to 7 years. Therefore, whether the arrest of the petitioners are necessary is to be decided by the Investigating OfÏcer in accordance with the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another [ 2014 (8) SCC 273 ] . Therefore, whether the arrest of the petitioners are necessary is to be decided by the Investigating OfÏcer in accordance with the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another [ 2014 (8) SCC 273 ] . It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment: “7. xxxxxxxxx 7.1. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that all person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police ofÏcer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. A police ofÏcer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case, or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the police ofÏcer, or unless such accused person is arrested, his conclusions, which one may reach based on facts. 7.2. The law mandates the police ofÏcer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. The law further requires the police ofÏcers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest. 7.3. In pith and core, the police ofÏcer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. In fine, before arrest first the police ofÏcers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. What object it will achieve? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. In fine, before arrest first the police ofÏcers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police ofÏcer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes, envisaged by sub- clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 CrPC.” 8. Therefore, whether the arrest of the petitioners are necessary or not, is to be decided by the Investigating OfÏcer after interrogation. For that purpose, there can be a direction to the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating OfÏcer within three weeks from today. The petitioners will appear before the Investigating OfÏcer on consecutive days from 10 AM to 4 PM. During the above period, the petitioners shall not be arrested. After interrogation, if the arrest of the petitioners is not necessary, the Investigating OfÏcer will do the needful in accordance with law. If the arrest of the petitioners is necessary, the Investigating OfÏcer will strictly follow the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar 's case (supra). After recording the arrest, the petitioners shall be produced before the jurisdictional court on the same day itself. At that time, the petitioners can file a bail application before the jurisdictional court with advance copy to the prosecutor concerned. If such a bail application is received, the jurisdictional court can consider the bail application on the date of filing of the same itself. The jurisdictional court shall consider the bail application in the light of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar 's case (supra). Therefore, these bail applications are disposed of with the following directions. 1) The petitioners will surrender before the Investigating OfÏcer within three weeks from today. 2) If the petitioners surrender before the Investigating OfÏcer as directed above, the Investigating OfÏcer is free to interrogate the petitioners. The Investigating OfÏcer is free to ask the petitioners to appear on consecutive days if necessary, but they shall not be arrested, till interrogation is over. 2) If the petitioners surrender before the Investigating OfÏcer as directed above, the Investigating OfÏcer is free to interrogate the petitioners. The Investigating OfÏcer is free to ask the petitioners to appear on consecutive days if necessary, but they shall not be arrested, till interrogation is over. 3) If the Investigating OfÏcer feels that the arrest is inevitable, even after interrogation, the Investigating OfÏcer shall follow the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar 's case (supra) and shall produce the accused before the jurisdictional court on the date on which the arrest is recorded. 4) The petitioners are free to file bail application before the jurisdictional court at the time of producing them as directed above. If such a bail application is filed with advance copy to the prosecutor concerned, the jurisdictional court will consider that bail application in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders in it preferably on the date of filing of the same itself. While deciding the bail application, the jurisdictional court shall scrupulously consider whether the Investigating OfÏcer followed the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar 's case (supra).