BIJU MANIKANDAN v. STATE OF KERALA (Bail Applications Nos. 4064, 4065, 4067 & 4068 of 2025)

``` 2025:KER:27820 ``` ``` Bail Appl. Nos.4064, 4065, 4067 & 4068 of 2025 ``` ``` 1 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4064 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1735/2024 OF Town West Police Station, Thrissur ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` BIJU MANIKANDAN AGED 47 YEARS S/O MANIKANDAN, PUTHANVEETIL HOUSE, PURA 41, PUTHOORKKARA, AYYANTHOLE P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 680003 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ABRAHAM MATHAN FREDY FRANCIS ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`G SUDHEER PP`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4065/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:27820 ``` ``` Bail Appl. Nos.4064, 4065, 4067 & 4068 of 2025 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4065 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1853/2024 OF Town West Police Station, Thrissur ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:`** ``` BIJU MANIKANDAN AGED 47 YEARS S/O MANIKANDAN, PUTHANVEETIL HOUSE, PURA 41, PUTHOORKKARA, AYYANTHOLE P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 680003 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ABRAHAM MATHAN FREDY FRANCIS ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`G SUDHEER PP`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4064/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:27820 ``` ``` Bail Appl. Nos.4064, 4065, 4067 & 4068 of 2025 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4067 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1724/2024 OF Town West Police Station, Thrissur ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5:`** ``` BIJU MANIKANDAN AGED 47 YEARS ``` ``` S/O MANIKANDAN, PUTHANVEETIL HOUSE, PURA 41, PUTHOORKKARA, AYYANTHOLE P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 680003 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ABRAHAM MATHAN FREDY FRANCIS ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SRI.NOUSHAD.K.A, SR.PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4064/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:27820 ``` ``` Bail Appl. Nos.4064, 4065, 4067 & 4068 of 2025 ``` ``` 4 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4068 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1707/2024 OF Town West Police Station, Thrissur ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5:`** ``` BIJU MANIKANDAN AGED 47 YEARS S/O MANIKANDAN, PUTHANVEETIL HOUSE, PURA 41, PUTHOORKKARA, AYYANTHOLE P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 680003 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ABRAHAM MATHAN FREDY FRANCIS ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`NOUSHAD SR PP`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4064/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:27820 ``` ``` Bail Appl. Nos.4064, 4065, 4067 & 4068 of 2025 ``` ``` 5 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------B.A. Nos.4064, 4065, 4067 & 4068 of 2025 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 01[st] day of April, 2025** ## **`ORDER`** These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. These bail applications are connected and therefore I am disposing of these cases by a common order. 2. The petitioner is an accused in different crimes of Town West Police Station, Thrissur. It is submitted that the cases are now transferred to Crime Branch, Thrissur investigated by the Assistant Commissioner, 'C' Branch. The offences alleged against the petitioner are inter alia under Sections 406 & 420 r/w 34 of the IPC and also under Sections 3 r/w 21, 4 r/w 22 and 5 r/w 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (for short 'BUDS Act'). 3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner, who is one of the director of the Heewan Nidhi Limited and Heewan Finance Limited, with intention to defraud the depositors, ``` 2025:KER:27820 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` Bail Appl. Nos.4064, 4065, 4067 & 4068 of 2025 ``` ``` 6 ``` received huge amount from the defacto complainant and others promising to repay the amount, with interest and thereafter, cheated the defacto complainant, without repaying the amount as promised. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said offences. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that several cases are registered against the petitioner with same set of facts. The petitioner was in jail for about 180 days. In several cases he was released on bail by this Court. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in several cases with same set of facts. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the petitioner is involved in several other cases with the same set of facts. The petitioner was released on bail in some cases under Section 483 of the BNSS. These bail applications are filed under Section 482 of the BNSS. Admittedly, the petitioner was in ``` 2025:KER:27820 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` Bail Appl. Nos.4064, 4065, 4067 & 4068 of 2025 ``` ``` 7 ``` custody for about 180 days. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioner may not be necessary. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think these bail applications can be allowed on 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 ``` 2025:KER:27820 ``` ``` Bail Appl. Nos.4064, 4065, 4067 & 4068 of 2025 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 8 ``` 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 selfesteem 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, these Bail Applications are allowed with the following directions: **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:27820 ``` ``` Bail Appl. Nos.4064, 4065, 4067 & 4068 of 2025 ``` ``` 9 ``` 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 cooperate 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 or to any police ``` 2025:KER:27820 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` Bail Appl. Nos.4064, 4065, 4067 & 4068 of 2025 ``` ## **`10`** 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 violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this ``` 2025:KER:27820 ``` ``` Bail Appl. Nos.4064, 4065, 4067 & 4068 of 2025 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [15 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 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. JV sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE**