Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 569 (KER)

SURESH. K. A S/o. ANANDHAN v. STATE OF KERALA

2025-03-12

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

body2025
ORDER : This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023. 2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.138/2025 of Varapuzha Police Station, Ernakulam. The above case was originally registered under Section 194 of BNSS . Subsequently, Section 108 of BNS is added. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 13.02.2025 at 03.00 PM, the defacto complainant’s brother committed suicide by hanging in his residence. It is alleged that the petitioner instigated the victim to commit suicide. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is running a chicken stall and the defacto complainant was an agent of the Kerala Lottery Tickets. The petitioner and the deceased were known to each other for the last several years. The petitioner being a friend of the deceased had given him hand loan of Rs.40 lakhs on different occasions. The petitioner’s wife auctioned two chitties for Rs.10 lakhs each on 27.04.2024 and 09.08.2024. Annexures-2 and 3 are the auction confirmation letter. The amount received by Annexures-2 and 3 were given to the deceased by the petitioner when he told him about the financial stringencies. When the petitioner demanded to return the money as he had to make payments towards KSFE and for his other personal needs, the deceased had issued a cheque in the name of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.30 lakhs. Annexure-4 is the cheque. The deceased person informed the petitioner that the cheque can be presented in the first week of February, 2025. Thereafter, when the petitioner informed the deceased about the presenting of the cheque, he requested the petitioner to present it after two days. It delayed. When the deceased repeatedly insisted the petitioner not to present the cheque, there was some wordy quarrel between the petitioner and the deceased. Thereafter the deceased committed suicide. The counsel submitted that, it is an admitted fact that there is some amount due to the petitioner from the deceased. The petitioner only demanded the amount due to him. In such situation, if a person commit suicide, no offence under Section 306 IPC is attracted. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. Thereafter the deceased committed suicide. The counsel submitted that, it is an admitted fact that there is some amount due to the petitioner from the deceased. The petitioner only demanded the amount due to him. In such situation, if a person commit suicide, no offence under Section 306 IPC is attracted. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is not co-operating with the investigation even though he surrendered before the Investigating Officer as ordered by this Court. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. When this bail application came up for consideration on 05.03.2025, this Court passed the following order: “The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer in Crime No.138/2025 of Varapuzha Police Station, Ernakulam on 07.03.2025. The Investigating Officer can interrogate the petitioner. The petitioner shall not be arrested. The Investigating Officer submit before this Court whether further custody is necessary. Post on 12.03.2025.” 8. The Investigating Officer submitted a report, in which it is stated that the petitioner is not co-operating with the investigation. But, the facts remains that there is some monetary transaction between the petitioner and the deceased. It is also a fact that the petitioner demanded the amount due to him from the deceased. For that reason if a person commit suicide, whether the ingredients of Section 306 IPC is attracted is a matter to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. I don’t want to make any observation about the same. But, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. There can be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer for two days consecutively at 10.00 AM to 03.00 PM, after his surrender. Thereafter, if arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to release the petitioner on bail. 9. 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. 10. 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. 10. 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 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.” 11. 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 petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for two days consecutively at 10.00 AM to 03.00 PM, after his surrender. 2. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for two days consecutively at 10.00 AM to 03.00 PM, after his surrender. 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 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. 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 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 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.