EQ BIBIN MATHEW P.M.MATHEW AMARNATH R LAL VISHNUMAYA ANANDAN SONYMON ANTONY AJMAL v. KARIM AKHIL KRISHNAN A

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4046 OF 2025 CRIME NO.1363/2024 OF Ottapalam Police Station, Palakkad PETITIONER/S: SREEJITH M R AGED 37 YEARS S/O RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, MANAMPURATHU HOUSE, POOKKOTTUMANA P.O, CHUNGATHARA, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 679334 BY ADVS. K.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ BIBIN MATHEW P.M.MATHEW AMARNATH R LAL SANALDEV E.P. VISHNUMAYA ANANDAN SONYMON ANTONY AJMAL V. KARIM RESPONDENT/S: 1 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682031 STATION HOUSE OFFICER OTTAPPALAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 679101 B.A. Nos.4159/2025 & conn. cases 4 OTHER PRESENT: G SUDHEER PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

01.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4159/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A. Nos.4159/2025 & conn. cases 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4048 OF 2025 CRIME NO.15/2025 OF Thirunelly Police Station, Wayanad PETITIONER/S: SREEJITH M R AGED 37 YEARS S/O RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, MANAMPURATHU HOUSE, POOKKOTTUMANA P.O, CHUNGATHARA, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679334, PIN - 679334 BY ADVS. K.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ P.M.MATHEW BIBIN MATHEW AMARNATH R LAL SANALDEV E.P. VISHNUMAYA ANANDAN SONYMON ANTONY AJMAL V. KARIM RESPONDENT/S: 1 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 STATION HOUSE OFFICER THIRUNELLI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 670646 B.A. Nos.4159/2025 & conn. cases 6 OTHER PRESENT: NOUSHAD SR PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

01.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4159/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A. Nos.4159/2025 & conn. cases 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4095 OF 2025 CRIME NO.58/2025 OF Thirunelly Police Station, Wayanad PETITIONER/S: SREEJITH M R AGED 37 YEARS S/O RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, MANAMPURATHU HOUSE, POOKKOTTUMANA P.O, CHUNGATHARA, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 679334 BY ADVS. K.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ P.M.MATHEW BIBIN MATHEW AMARNATH R LAL SANALDEV E.P. VISHNUMAYA ANANDAN SONYMON ANTONY AJMAL V. KARIM RESPONDENT/S: 1 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682031 STATION HOUSE OFFICER THIRUNELLI, POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT., PIN - 670646 B.A. Nos.4159/2025 & conn. cases 8 OTHER PRESENT: G SUDHEER PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

01.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4159/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A. Nos.4159/2025 & conn. cases 9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4096 OF 2025 CRIME NO.1359/2024 OF Ottapalam Police Station, Palakkad PETITIONER/S: SREEJITH M R AGED 37 YEARS S/O RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, MANAMPURATHU HOUSE, POOKKOTTUMANA P.O, CHUNGATHARA, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 679334 BY ADVS. K.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ BIBIN MATHEW P.M.MATHEW AMARNATH R LAL SANALDEV E.P. VISHNUMAYA ANANDAN SONYMON ANTONY AJMAL V. KARIM RESPONDENT/S: 1 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031 STATION HOUSE OFFICER OTTAPPALAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 679101 B.A. Nos.4159/2025 & conn. cases 10 OTHER PRESENT: G SUDHEER PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

01.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4159/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A. Nos.4159/2025 & conn. cases 11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4101 OF 2025 CRIME NO.588/2024 OF Kenichira Police Station, Wayanad PETITIONER/S: SREEJITH MR AGED 37 YEARS S/O RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, MANAMPURATHU HOUSE, POOKKOTTUMANA P.O, CHUNGATHARA, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 679334 BY ADVS. K.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ BIBIN MATHEW P.M.MATHEW AMARNATH R LAL SANALDEV E.P. VISHNUMAYA ANANDAN SONYMON ANTONY AJMAL V. KARIM RESPONDENT/S: 1 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682031 STATION HOUSE OFFICER KENICHIRA POLICE STATION, WAYANAND DISTRICT., PIN - 673596 B.A. Nos.4159/2025 & conn. cases 12 OTHER PRESENT: C.S HRITHWICK SR PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

01.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4159/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A. Nos.4159/2025 & conn. cases 13 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4109 OF 2025 CRIME NO.604/2024 OF Kenichira Police Station, Wayanad PETITIONER/S: SREEJITH M R AGED 37 YEARS S/O RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, MANAMPURATHU HOUSE, POOKKOTTUMANA P.O, CHUNGATHARA, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 679334 BY ADVS. K.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ BIBIN MATHEW P.M.MATHEW AMARNATH R LAL SANALDEV E.P. VISHNUMAYA ANANDAN SONYMON ANTONY AJMAL V. KARIM RESPONDENT/S: 1 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682031 STATION HOUSE OFFICER KENICHIRA POLICE STATION, WAYANAND DISTRICT., PIN - 673596 B.A. Nos.4159/2025 & conn. cases 14 OTHER PRESENT: NOUSHAD SR PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

01.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4159/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A. Nos.4159/2025 & conn. cases 15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4142 OF 2025 CRIME NO.964/2024 OF Meppadi Police Station, Wayanad PETITIONER/S: SREEJITH M R AGED 37 YEARS S/O RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, MANAMPURATHU HOUSE, POOKKOTTUMANA P.O, CHUNGATHARA, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 679334 BY ADVS. K.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ BIBIN MATHEW P.M.MATHEW AMARNATH R LAL SANALDEV E.P. VISHNUMAYA ANANDAN SONYMON ANTONY AJMAL V. KARIM RESPONDENT/S: 1 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031 STATION HOUSE OFFICER MEPPADI POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT., PIN - 673577 B.A. Nos.4159/2025 & conn. cases 16 OTHER PRESENT: C.S HRITHWICK SR PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

01.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4159/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A. Nos.4159/2025 & conn. cases 17 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J –------------------------------------- B.A. Nos. 4159/2025, 4046/2025, 4048/2025, 4095/2025, 4096/2025, 4101/2025, 4109/2025, 4142/2025 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 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 these bail applications by a common order.

2. The petitioner in these cases are one and the same. The petitioner is the accused in Crime Nos.1359 & 1363 of 2024 of Ottapalam Police Station, Crime Nos.15 & 58 of 2025 of Thirunelly Police Station, Crime Nos.964/2024 & 60/2025 of Meppadi Police Station and Crime Nos. 558 & 604 of 2024 of Kanichira Police Station.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused B.A. Nos.4159/2025 & conn. cases 18 persons cheated the defacto complainants in these cases because they collected huge amount in connection with chitty and the amount is not disbursed to the defacto complainants.

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

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is only an employee of Karatt Kuries India Pvt. Ltd. He is not involved in the day to day affairs of the company. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail. It is also submitted that the petitioner was in custody for about 70 days in connection with another case with same set of facts. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

6. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is serious. But, the petitioner is an employee of Karatt Kuries India Pvt. Ltd. For the same set of facts, the petitioner was in custody for about 70 days. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary. The petitioner can be directed to appear before the investigating officer and B.A. Nos.4159/2025 & conn. cases 19 after interrogation, if the arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to release the petitioner on bail, after imposing stringent conditions.

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 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 B.A. Nos.4159/2025 & conn. cases 20 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 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 one B.A. Nos.4159/2025 & conn. cases 21 month 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 petitioners 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 B.A. Nos.4159/2025 & conn. cases 22 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. The observations findings in this order is only for the purpose B.A. Nos.4159/2025 & conn. cases 23 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.

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 the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court to cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated. SKS Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE