Abdul Rasheed v. State of Kerala and The Station House Officer, Cyber Crime Police Station, Thrissur

**==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:27075** # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947** **BAIL APPL. NO. 3515 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.96/2024 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, THRISSUR,** **Thrissur** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **ABDUL RASHEED AGED 27 YEARS KATTUBAVA, KOTTARAM, VALANCHERY, KATTIPOARUTHI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676552** **BY ADVS. T.S.SARATH MANU RAMACHANDRAN M.KIRANLAL R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SAMEER M NAIR SABIKH MOHAMMED V.S SAILAKSHMI MENON AASHI K. SHAJAN MINZA FATHIMA SALIM M. BINITHA MARIA THOMAS KEZIL THOTTUKADAVIL CHERIAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** 2025:KER:27075 2 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** B.A.No.3515 of 2025 **2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680006** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR PP- HRITHWIK C S** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2025:KER:27075 B.A.No.3515 of 2025 3 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **==> picture [286 x 6] intentionally omitted <==** ## **B.A. No.3515 of 2025** **---------------------------------** Dated this the 28[th] day of March, 2025 ## **ORDER** This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.96 of 2025 of Cyber Crime Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC, 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 66D of Information Technology Act. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused with the intention to earn unlawful gain from the de-facto complainant sent a message to Whatsapp number 9160973862 and made her believe that that they are the Directors of GOLD MAN SACHS Company and made her to join in a whatsapp group to provide 2025:KER:27075 B.A.No.3515 of 2025 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 4 trading tips on 10.06.2024 and made her done the trade as instructed by them. After that accused instructed her to deposit an amount of Rs.57,09,620 into 10 different bank accounts through 17 transactions during the period from 25.06.2024 to 09.08.2024 by made her believe that she will get high returns if invest money through their accounts. From that amount Rs.1,29,000 returned to de-facto complainant and the remaining 55,80,620 and the profit shares are not returned. Thereby the accused cheated de-facto complainant 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. When this bail application came up for consideration on 21.03.2025, this Court passed the following order; “The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 25.03.2025. The investigating officer can interrogate the petitioner and submit a report before this Court 2025:KER:27075 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** B.A.No.3515 of 2025 5 whether further custodial interrogartion is necessary. Post on 28.03.2025. The petitioner shall not be arrested till then.” 6. Today when the matter came up for consideration, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner surrendered before the investigating officer and his statement has been recorded. If that is the case, further custodial interrogation may not be necessary. The petitioner can be directed to appear before the investigating officer once again and after interrogation, if arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to release the petitioner. 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** 2025:KER:27075 B.A.No.3515 of 2025 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 6 **(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 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 2025:KER:27075 B.A.No.3515 of 2025 7 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 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 2025:KER:27075 B.A.No.3515 of 2025 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 8 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 2025:KER:27075 B.A.No.3515 of 2025 9 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 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. 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 2025:KER:27075 10 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## B.A.No.3515 of 2025 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. Sd/- ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** Scl/