Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 763 (KER)

RAJAN v. STATE OF KERALA

2025-03-27

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

body2025
ORDER : These bail applications are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023. These bail applications are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these cases by a common order. 2. The petitioner in all these cases are one and the same person. He is an accused in Crime Nos.933/2024, 996/2024, 997/2024, 998/2024 and 1010/2024 of Perumbavoor Police Station, Ernakulam. The above cases are registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable inter alia under Sections 468, 471, 420 r/w 34 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused in these cases misused their official position and with an intention to cause unlawful loss to the complainants and to make wrongful gain to themselves, forged documents and availed loans in the name of the complainants and thereby cheated them. 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 was already arrested in connection with Crime No.838/2024 of Perumbavoor Police Station, in which also the allegation is almost same. The counsel submitted that the police custody is also over. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court, if this Court grant him bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is actively involved in these cases. He also submitted that the petitioner was the Director of the society from 1999-2019 and also the President of the society from 2012-2017. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the present petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS . But the petitioner earlier filed a petition under Section 482 of BNSS in Crime No.838/2024 of Perumbavoor Police Station and this Court was not inclined to grant bail. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested in that Crime on 04.03.2025. Now, this Court granted bail to the petitioner in that crime in BA No.4149/2025. Admittedly, the petitioner’s arrest is not recorded in these crimes. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is already over, I think, the petitioner can be released on bail under Section 482 of BNSS in these cases also. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner’s arrest is not recorded in these crimes. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is already over, I think, the petitioner can be released on bail under Section 482 of BNSS in these cases also. 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 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-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. 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 these cases, these Bail Applications are allowed with the following conditions: 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 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. 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. 7. 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 ]. 8. 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 and the victims are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated.