✦ High Court of India · 28 Mar 2025

The High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 28 Mar 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
28 Mar 2025
Bench
P V KUNHIKRISHNAN
Length
1,288 words

Cited in this judgment

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 3993 OF 2025 CRIME NO.533/2025 OF Town West Police Station, Thrissur PETITIONER/S: SUNDAR MENON AGED 62 YEARS S/O CHANDRA SEKHARA MENON, THEKKE ADIYATT VEETTIL CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE & DESOM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001 BY ADV PREMCHAND M. RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT: SR PP-HRITHWIK C S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

28.03.2025, ALONG WITH BA 3991/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.Nos.3991 & 3993 of 2025 3 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------- B.A. No.3991 & 3993 of 2025 ----------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2025 ORDER These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. These bail applications are connected and therefore I am disposing these bail applications by a common order.

2. Petitioner in both these cases are one and the same. He is an accused in Crime Nos.415/2025 and 533/2025 of Town West Police Station. Above cases are registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 of the Indian Pencal Code, 1860.

3. The common allegations in these cases is that the petitioner persuaded and induced the B.A.Nos.3991 & 3993 of 2025 4 defacto complainant to make deposits with Heewan Nidhi Limited and Heewan Finance Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act. It is also alleged that the petitioner through the said company offered high rate of interest and received huge amounts from the depositers and cheated them without repayment as promised. Hence it is alleged that accused committed the above said offences.

4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the public Prosecutor.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that several cases are registered against the petitioner and the petitioner was in custody for a long period in connection with cases registered with same set of facts. As per Ext.P1 produced in these bail applications, this Court released the petitioner on bail after imposing stringent conditions. Now the B.A.Nos.3991 & 3993 of 2025 5 petitioner filing these bail applications under Section 482 of BNSS apprehending arrest in Crime Nos.415/2025 and 533/2025 of Town West Police Station.

6. Since the petitioner was in custody in connection with the cases registered with same set of facts for a long period, I am of the considered opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner in these cases is not necessary. Since no purpose will be served in sending the petitioner to jail again, the petitioner can be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer can interrogate the petitioner. After interrogation, if arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to the Investigating Officer to release the petitioner on bail after imposing stringent conditions. B.A.Nos.3991 & 3993 of 2025 6

7. 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.

8. 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 B.A.Nos.3991 & 3993 of 2025 7 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.”

9. 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 B.A.Nos.3991 & 3993 of 2025 8 should be denied in every case.

10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:

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. B.A.Nos.3991 & 3993 of 2025 9

3. The petitioner shall appear before Investigating Officer 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/her 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. B.A.Nos.3991 & 3993 of 2025 10

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, jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court to B.A.Nos.3991 & 3993 of 2025 11 cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated. P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN Sd/- JUDGE Scl/

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 3993 OF 2025 CRIME NO.533/2025 OF Town West Police Station, Thrissur PETITIONER/S: SUNDAR MENON AGED 62 YEARS S/O CHANDRA SEKHARA MENON, THEKKE ADIYATT VEETTIL CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE & DESOM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001 BY ADV PREMCHAND M. RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT: SR PP-HRITHWIK C S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

28.03.2025, ALONG WITH BA 3991/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.Nos.3991 & 3993 of 2025 3 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------- B.A. No.3991 & 3993 of 2025 ----------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2025 ORDER These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. These bail applications are connected and therefore I am disposing these bail applications by a common order.

2. Petitioner in both these cases are one and the same. He is an accused in Crime Nos.415/2025 and 533/2025 of Town West Police Station. Above cases are registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 of the Indian Pencal Code, 1860.

3. The common allegations in these cases is that the petitioner persuaded and induced the B.A.Nos.3991 & 3993 of 2025 4 defacto complainant to make deposits with Heewan Nidhi Limited and Heewan Finance Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act. It is also alleged that the petitioner through the said company offered high rate of interest and received huge amounts from the depositers and cheated them without repayment as promised. Hence it is alleged that accused committed the above said offences.

4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the public Prosecutor.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that several cases are registered against the petitioner and the petitioner was in custody for a long period in connection with cases registered with same set of facts. As per Ext.P1 produced in these bail applications, this Court released the petitioner on bail after imposing stringent conditions. Now the B.A.Nos.3991 & 3993 of 2025 5 petitioner filing these bail applications under Section 482 of BNSS apprehending arrest in Crime Nos.415/2025 and 533/2025 of Town West Police Station.

6. Since the petitioner was in custody in connection with the cases registered with same set of facts for a long period, I am of the considered opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner in these cases is not necessary. Since no purpose will be served in sending the petitioner to jail again, the petitioner can be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer can interrogate the petitioner. After interrogation, if arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to the Investigating Officer to release the petitioner on bail after imposing stringent conditions. B.A.Nos.3991 & 3993 of 2025 6

7. 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.

8. 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 B.A.Nos.3991 & 3993 of 2025 7 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.”

9. 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 B.A.Nos.3991 & 3993 of 2025 8 should be denied in every case.

10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:

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. B.A.Nos.3991 & 3993 of 2025 9

3. The petitioner shall appear before Investigating Officer 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/her 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. B.A.Nos.3991 & 3993 of 2025 10

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, jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court to B.A.Nos.3991 & 3993 of 2025 11 cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated. P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN Sd/- JUDGE Scl/

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