✦ High Court of India · 27 Mar 2025

BY AD vs C.P.UDAYABHANU

Case Details High Court of India · 27 Mar 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
27 Mar 2025
Bench
P V KUNHIKRISHNAN
Length
1,095 words

Cited in this judgment

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 STATION HOUSE OFFICER MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682314 OTHER PRESENT: SR PP-HRITHWIK C S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

27.03.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..3937/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 3931 &3937 OF 2025 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 3937 OF 2025 CRIME NO.1129/2024 OF Mulanthuruthy Police Station, Ernakulam PETITIONER/S: 1 2 3 4 5 RATHEESH. K. DIVAKARAN AGED 45 YEARS KAITHAKKOTTIL HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682314 SOOSI PETER AGED 67 YEARS W/O. PETER VAZHAKULANGARA HOUSE, VETTIKKAL, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682314 T.G. MANI AGED 73 YEARS S/O. GEORGE, THOMMANKUDIYIL HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682314 SHAJI MADHAVAN NAIR AGED 53 YEARS S/O. MADHAVAN NAIR, NIRAVATH HOUSE, PAINGARAPILLY, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682314 GEORGE. K. THOMAS AGED 68 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, KUNNAPPILLIL HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY, PIN - 682314 6 G. RAJENDRAN BAIL APPL. NO. 3931 &3937 OF 2025 4 AGED 72 YEARS S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, RADHAJI MANDIRAM, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682314 BY ADVS. C.P.UDAYABHANU NAVANEETH.N.NATH RESPONDENT/S: 1 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 STATION HOUSE OFFICER MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682314 OTHER PRESENT: SR PP-NOUSHAD K A THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

27.03.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..3931/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 3931 &3937 OF 2025 5 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J –------------------------------------- B.A. Nos. 3931 & 3937 of 2025 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March, 2025 O R D E R These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. These bail applications are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these bail applications by a common order.

2. When these bail applications came up for consideration, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the 5th petitioner, Sri.George K Thomas in BA No.3931/2025 is not an accused in Crime No. 1119/2024 of Mulanthuruthy Police Station. He is deleted from the accused array in the above crime and the same is recorded. It is also submitted that the 6th petitioner, Sri.G.Rajendran in BA No. 3937/2025 is also not an accused in Crime No. 1129/2024 of Mulanthuruthy BAIL APPL. NO. 3931 &3937 OF 2025 6 Police Station and the same is recorded.

3. BA No. 3937/2025 is filed apprehending arrest in Crime No. 1129/2024 of Mulanthuruthy Police Station and BA No.3931/2025 is filed apprehending arrest in Crime No. 1119/2024 of Mulanthuruthy Police Station. The common prosecution case in these crimes is that the petitioners, who were the board members of Mulanthuruthy Service Co- operative Bank committed forgery, cheating and criminal misappropriation. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are only directors of the Society and they were not involved in the day to day affairs of the society. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners may be released on bail and they are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant them bail. Public Prosecutor opposed the BAIL APPL. NO. 3931 &3937 OF 2025 7 bail application.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. This Court as per the common order dated 14.02.2025 in BA No. 1058/2025 disposed the bail application filed by the co-accused in these cases. I think a similar order can be passed in these cases.

7. Therefore, there can be a direction to the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer can interrogate the petitioners. In these cases, the arrest can be recorded only in exceptional cases, that also for sufficient reasons. If the arrest of the petitioners is necessary, the Investigating Officer shall strictly follow the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another [2014 (8) SCC 273].

7. Therefore, these bail applications are disposed of with the following directions: 1) The petitioners will surrender before the Investigating Officer within three weeks from today. BAIL APPL. NO. 3931 &3937 OF 2025 8 2) If the petitioners surrender before the Investigating Officer as directed above, the Investigating Officer is free to interrogate the petitioners. The Investigating Officer 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 Officer feels that, the arrest is inevitable, even after interrogation, the Investigating Officer 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, BAIL APPL. NO. 3931 &3937 OF 2025 9 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 Officer followed the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar's case (supra). SKS Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 STATION HOUSE OFFICER MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682314 OTHER PRESENT: SR PP-HRITHWIK C S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

27.03.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..3937/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 3931 &3937 OF 2025 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 3937 OF 2025 CRIME NO.1129/2024 OF Mulanthuruthy Police Station, Ernakulam PETITIONER/S: 1 2 3 4 5 RATHEESH. K. DIVAKARAN AGED 45 YEARS KAITHAKKOTTIL HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682314 SOOSI PETER AGED 67 YEARS W/O. PETER VAZHAKULANGARA HOUSE, VETTIKKAL, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682314 T.G. MANI AGED 73 YEARS S/O. GEORGE, THOMMANKUDIYIL HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682314 SHAJI MADHAVAN NAIR AGED 53 YEARS S/O. MADHAVAN NAIR, NIRAVATH HOUSE, PAINGARAPILLY, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682314 GEORGE. K. THOMAS AGED 68 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, KUNNAPPILLIL HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY, PIN - 682314 6 G. RAJENDRAN BAIL APPL. NO. 3931 &3937 OF 2025 4 AGED 72 YEARS S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, RADHAJI MANDIRAM, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682314 BY ADVS. C.P.UDAYABHANU NAVANEETH.N.NATH RESPONDENT/S: 1 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 STATION HOUSE OFFICER MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682314 OTHER PRESENT: SR PP-NOUSHAD K A THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

27.03.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..3931/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 3931 &3937 OF 2025 5 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J –------------------------------------- B.A. Nos. 3931 & 3937 of 2025 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March, 2025 O R D E R These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. These bail applications are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these bail applications by a common order.

2. When these bail applications came up for consideration, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the 5th petitioner, Sri.George K Thomas in BA No.3931/2025 is not an accused in Crime No. 1119/2024 of Mulanthuruthy Police Station. He is deleted from the accused array in the above crime and the same is recorded. It is also submitted that the 6th petitioner, Sri.G.Rajendran in BA No. 3937/2025 is also not an accused in Crime No. 1129/2024 of Mulanthuruthy BAIL APPL. NO. 3931 &3937 OF 2025 6 Police Station and the same is recorded.

3. BA No. 3937/2025 is filed apprehending arrest in Crime No. 1129/2024 of Mulanthuruthy Police Station and BA No.3931/2025 is filed apprehending arrest in Crime No. 1119/2024 of Mulanthuruthy Police Station. The common prosecution case in these crimes is that the petitioners, who were the board members of Mulanthuruthy Service Co- operative Bank committed forgery, cheating and criminal misappropriation. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are only directors of the Society and they were not involved in the day to day affairs of the society. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners may be released on bail and they are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant them bail. Public Prosecutor opposed the BAIL APPL. NO. 3931 &3937 OF 2025 7 bail application.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. This Court as per the common order dated 14.02.2025 in BA No. 1058/2025 disposed the bail application filed by the co-accused in these cases. I think a similar order can be passed in these cases.

7. Therefore, there can be a direction to the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer can interrogate the petitioners. In these cases, the arrest can be recorded only in exceptional cases, that also for sufficient reasons. If the arrest of the petitioners is necessary, the Investigating Officer shall strictly follow the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another [2014 (8) SCC 273].

7. Therefore, these bail applications are disposed of with the following directions: 1) The petitioners will surrender before the Investigating Officer within three weeks from today. BAIL APPL. NO. 3931 &3937 OF 2025 8 2) If the petitioners surrender before the Investigating Officer as directed above, the Investigating Officer is free to interrogate the petitioners. The Investigating Officer 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 Officer feels that, the arrest is inevitable, even after interrogation, the Investigating Officer 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, BAIL APPL. NO. 3931 &3937 OF 2025 9 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 Officer followed the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar's case (supra). SKS Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

Find similar cases Start drafting free
This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments