JITHIN DAS S/O SATHYDAS v. STATE OF KERALA

BAIL APPL. NO. 4055 OF 2025 1 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27183 **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. 4055 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.207/2025 OF Palakkad Town South Police Station,** ## **Palakkad** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **JITHIN DAS AGED 30 YEARS S/O. SATHYDAS, RESIDING AT 5/412, SAJISHNA, AMRITHA NAGAR, PUTHUR P.O, PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 678007 BY ADVS.** **SRIKANTH THAMBAN FIRDOUSE.K.K ALTHAF NABEEL GOPIN V. GOPAL** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** **2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER PALAKKAD TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE RD, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 678013** ## **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:** BAIL APPL. NO. 4055 OF 2025 2 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27183 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **–-------------------------------------** **B.A. No. 4055 of 2025 -------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of March, 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. 207/25 of Palakkad Town South Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Secs. 420 and 34 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that, the defacto complainant, an employee of the applicant who works as Office Maanger at M/s. Z8 Sports Hub and Coach at M/s. SA Sporting, who alleged that accused Nos. 3 and 4 cheated the defacto complainant by promising a job at M/s. Food Corporation of BAIL APPL. NO. 4055 OF 2025 3 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27183 India and extracted a sum of Rs. 18,30,000/-. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner appeared before the investigating officer based on notice under Sec. 35(3) of the BNSS. The counsel submitted that again the police is harassing the petitioner. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner appeared before the investigating officer and he is thoroughly investigated and interrogated. The Public Prosecutor submitted that there may be a direction to co-operate with the investigation. If that is the case, there can be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer once again, so that the procedures can be completed. If the petitioner is arrested, there can be a direction to release the petitioner on bail, after imposing stringent conditions. 6. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the BAIL APPL. NO. 4055 OF 2025 4 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27183 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. 7. 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 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: BAIL APPL. NO. 4055 OF 2025 5 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27183 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.” 8. 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. 9. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4055 OF 2025 6 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27183 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/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. BAIL APPL. NO. 4055 OF 2025 7 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27183 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4055 OF 2025 8 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27183 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. **sd/P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SKS