Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 839 (KER)

Anantha Krishnan S/o Anilkumar v. State Of Kerala

2025-04-03

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

body2025
ORDER : 1. These bail applications are filed under Section482 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 these cases are one and the same person. He was an accused in different Crimes registered at Aranmula Police Station, Koipuram Police Station and Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. The above cases are now investigated by the Crime Branch Police. The above cases are registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable inter alia under Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 5 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (for short ‘BUDS Act’). 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and the other accused cheated the defacto complainants in these cases by collecting huge amounts from them as deposits. It is alleged that neither the deposited amount nor the interest is not returned. 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 allegation against the petitioner is not correct. It is submitted that the petitioner is the son of the Managing Director of the Company. He is settled in Singapore and he is not attending the day-to-day affairs of the Company. It is submitted that the petitioner went abroad in 2019. He has no connection with the Company. His father added him as a Director. Different contentions are raised by the petitioner stating that it is not an unregulated deposit scheme. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions imposed by this Court, if this Court grants him bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is now not in India. But the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is coming back to India on 15.04.2025 and the travel document is also produced. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner and other accused are serious. But the petitioner is only one of the Director of the Company. The Managing Director is the father of the petitioner. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner and other accused are serious. But the petitioner is only one of the Director of the Company. The Managing Director is the father of the petitioner. He was already arrested and released on bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, the petitioner can be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer and after interrogation if arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to release the petitioner on bail. 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 toappreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.” 10. 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 toappreciate 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. 11. 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 four 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/-(RupeesFifty 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 heis 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. 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.