Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail allowed with conditions

Ansari Yousaff v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 3750 OF 2025
Neutral Citation:2025:KER:30842

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2025-04-09
Court Decision / Holding
The bail application is allowed. Direction include: (1) The petitioner must appear before the IO within two weeks for interrogation; (2) After interrogation, if the IO proposes arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties; (3) The petitioner shall appear before the IO as required and cooperate with the investigation; (4) The petitioner shall not leave India without court permission; (5) The petitioner shall not commit a similar offense; (6) The investigating officer may proceed with investigation and recoveries as permissible, even if the petitioner is on bail; (7) The order cites principles from Sushila Aggarwal, Anzar Azeez, and Siddharth to underline bail norms; (8) If any condition is violated, bail can be cancelled by the jurisdictional court. The judgment notes that these directions are specific to the bail application and that the cited authorities inform the applicable doctrine.
Final Disposition
Bail allowed with conditions

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Ansari Yousaff

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • The Station House Officer, Thodupuzha Police Station, Thodupuzha, Idukki District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sidharth A. Menon
  • • V. Ajakumar
  • • Vinitha S.T.
  • • M.R. Harikrishnan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Case Synopsis & Summary

Ansari Yousaff, an accused in Crime No.4/2025 of Thodupuzha Police Station, approaches the Kerala High Court seeking bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS). The prosecution’s case alleges that the defacto complainant paid a substantial sum to the petitioner to arrange a course in Latvia for Transportation Technology and Logistics, thereby accusing him of cheating under Sec. 318(4) BNS 2023. The court records that, previously, on 02.04.2025, it directed the petitioner to appear before the IO on 04.04.2025 for interrogation to determine whether custodial interrogation was necessary, and that the petitioner would not be arrested until the next posting date. By the time of today’s hearing, the prosecution states that the petitioner surrendered and was interrogated, and that no further custodial interrogation is required; if arrest is contemplated, the petitioner could be released on bail with stringent conditions. The court reiterates the primacy of bail as a general rule with custody as the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and other decisions, and emphasizes that personal liberty is a fundamental value. It holds that the bail application should be allowed, with specific directions: the petitioner must appear before the IO within two weeks for interrogation; after interrogation, if arrest is proposed, release on bond Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties; further conditions include cooperation, travel restrictions, and non-commission of similar offenses. The court also cites Sushila Aggarwal, Anzar Azeez, and Siddharth v. UP to reinforce the applicable principles and clarifies that breach may lead to cancellation of bail. The order ultimately grants bail subject to these terms and states that the observations are confined to the bail application.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha SanhitaSec. 318(4) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
  • Personal liberty is an important aspect of the constitutional mandate

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contend that the arrest is not warranted and that custodial interrogation, if any, has already occurred as per the prior order. Relying on the well-settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, they argue that the court should grant bail with reasonable conditions to secure a fair trial and prevent unnecessary prejudice. They emphasize that their surrender and subsequent interrogation reduce the risk of witness interference and that continued detention would be unjustified, given the innocent‑until‑proven‑guilty principle and the potential for non-custodial investigation. They request that if arrest is contemplated, it should be subject to stringent conditions and supervision rather than continued detention.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the nature of the alleged offence (cheating under Sec. 318(4) BNS) warrants thorough custodial consideration due to the risk of manipulating witnesses, absconding, or influencing records. They argue that the accused’s surrender does not eliminate the necessity of investigation and possible arrest, especially given the gravity of the alleged misconduct and the need to maintain public interest and procedural integrity. They urge that bail should be granted only with robust conditions and that the jurisdictional court must retain authority to cancel bail if conditions are violated.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement[2019 (16) SCALE 870]PositiveUsed to affirm the basic bail jurisprudence: bail is the rule and refusal is the exception to ensure fair trial.
Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another[2021(5)KHC 353]PositiveEmphasizes the importance of personal liberty and cautions against automatic denial of bail.
Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others(1994 KHC 189; (1994) 4 SCC 260; AIR 1994 SC 1349)PositiveDistinguishes power to arrest from justification for arrest; cautions against routine arrest.
Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation[2023 KHC 6961]PositiveEven grave economic offences do not automatically bar bail; bail considerations apply.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another[2020 (1) KHC 663]PositiveSupports bail with appropriate conditions and safeguards.
Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala[2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260]PositivePrinciple applicable to bail in Kerala context; reinforces court’s approach.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Ansari Yousaff v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

BAIL APPL. NO. 3750 OF 2025 1 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30842 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1947** **BAIL APPL. NO. 3750 OF 2025** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **ANSARI YOUSAFF AGED 56 YEARS S/O. P.U. YOUSAFF, MEDAYIL, NEAR GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683542** **BY ADVS. SIDHARTH A.MENON V.AJAKUMAR VINITHA S.T. M.R.HARIKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** **2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THOUDUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685584** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR PP-NOUSHAD K A** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **09.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 3750 OF 2025 2 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30842 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **–-------------------------------------** **B.A. No.3750 of 2025 -------------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of April, 2025** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.4/2025 of Thodupuzha Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sec. 318(4) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 3. The prosecution case is that, the defacto complainant paid huge amount to the accused for arranging a course in the European country called Latviya for Transportation Tech and Logistics. The prosecution BAIL APPL. NO. 3750 OF 2025 3 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30842 case is that the petitioner cheated the defacto complainant. 4. Heard. 5. When this bail application came up for consideration on 02.04.2025, this Court passed the following order. “The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer in Crime No.4/2025 of Thodupuzha Police Station on 04.04.2025. The Investigating Officer shall interrogate the petitioner and file a report before this Court after interrogation as to whether custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. The petitioner shall not be arrested till the next posting date. Post on 09.04.2025. Issue a copy of this order to the Public Prosecutor who will communicate the same to the Investigating Officer concerned.” 6. Today, when the matter came up for consideration, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner surrendered and he is interrogated. No further custodial interrogation is necessary. If that is the case, the petitioner can be directed to surrender once BAIL APPL. NO. 3750 OF 2025 4 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30842 again to complete the procedures. If the arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to the petitioner 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3750 OF 2025 5 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30842 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3750 OF 2025 6 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30842 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. 3. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the BAIL APPL. NO. 3750 OF 2025 7 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30842 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. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3750 OF 2025 8 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30842 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 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. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3750 OF 2025 9 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30842 conditions are violated. **Sd/P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SKS