Joy @ Dinkan Joy v. State of Kerala

``` 2025:KER:28150 ``` ``` 1 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4257 OF 2025`** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4257 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1151/2024 OF Kattakada Police Station, ``` ## **`Thiruvananthapuram`** ## **`PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:`** ``` JOY @ DINKAN JOY AGED 33 YEARS S/O THANKAN @ JOY, MEKKUMKARA VEEDU, THEMBACHAL, MOTTALUMOODU, CHILAMPARA DESOM, KEEZHAROOR, KEEZHAROOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695125 ``` ## **`BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN`** ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`SR PP-NOUSHAD K A`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4257 OF 2025 ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28150 ``` ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------B.A.No.4257 of 2025 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 02[nd] day of April, 2025** ## **ORDER** This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioner is the 3[rd] accused in Crime No.1151/2024 of Kattakkada Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 316 and 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, BNS). 3. The prosecution case is that, accused Nos.1 and 2 pledged fake gold ornaments weighing 33.99 gms with the institution of the defacto complainant for Rs.2 lakhs. It is alleged that the petitioner who is the 3[rd] accused gave the fake gold ornaments to accused Nos.1 and 2. ``` 2025:KER:28150 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4257 OF 2025`** 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. It is true that the allegation against the accused is serious. The allegation against the petitioner who is the 3[rd] accused is that, he supplied the spurious gold to the main accused. The main accused produced the same before the defacto complainant’s institution. Considering the facts and circumstances and also considering the fact that there is no criminal antecedent to the petitioner, I think this bail application can be allowed. 6. 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. 7. Recently the Apex Court in **Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2021(5)KHC 353]** ``` 2025:KER:28150 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4257 OF 2025 ``` ``` 4 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 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: 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 ``` 2025:KER:28150 ``` ``` 5 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4257 OF 2025`** 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, I think bail can be granted after imposing stringent conditions. Therefore, 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 ``` 2025:KER:28150 ``` ``` 6 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4257 OF 2025`** 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 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 ``` 2025:KER:28150 ``` ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4257 OF 2025`** 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 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 ``` 2025:KER:28150 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4257 OF 2025 ``` ``` 8 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] 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. sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** JV