Mohankumar A. Pillai v. State of Kerala (Bail Application No. 7349 of 2024)

B.A.No.7349 of 2024 1 2025:KER:27121 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **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. 7349 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.1497/2024 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1:** **MOHANKUMAR A. PILLAI** **AGED 54 YEARS S/O. N.S. ARAVINDAKSHAN, H.NO. 103, MNRA, VILAYIL VADAKATHIL, MURUNTHAL, PERINAD (P.O.) KOLLAM, PIN - 691601** **BY ADVS. P VIJAYABHANU, SR SRUTHY N. BHAT P.M.RAFIQ M.REVIKRISHNAN AJEESH K.SASI RAHUL SUNIL SRUTHY K.K SOHAIL AHAMMED HARRIS P.P. NANDITHA S. KRISHNAPRIYA SREEKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** B.A.No.7349 of 2024 2 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27121 **BY ADV.** ## **SR PP-NOUSHAD K A** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.7349 of 2024 3 2025:KER:27121 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.7349 of 2024 ------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of March, 2025 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.1497/2024 of Kollam East Police Station, Kollam. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 351(2), 319(2), 62 of 308(2), 318(4) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'). 3. The prosecution case is that the applicant being an officer of the Enforcement Directorate, along with other accused persons demanded money from the defacto complainant against whom a crime was registered by the ED under the PML Act in the year 2018, to settle the same and when it was not complied with, the accused persons threatened B.A.No.7349 of 2024 4 2025:KER:27121 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** the defacto complainant of dire consequences. It is further alleged that, on 24-08-2024 at around 10 A.M., the 2nd accused trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and informed him to handover the money to the person who comes with Rs.100/- as shown through whatsapp and thereby attempted to commit the offences above mentioned. 4. Heard Adv. P. Vijayabhanu, the learned Senior Counsel as instructed by Adv. Sruthy N. Bhat, appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. When this bail application came up for consideration on 17.03.2025, this Court passed the following order: “The petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer on 24.03.2025 at 10.00 a.m. The Investigating Officer can interrogate the petitioner till 01.00 p.m. After recording the statement, the Investigating Officer will submit a report before this Court whether the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Post on 28.03.2025. B.A.No.7349 of 2024 5 2025:KER:27121 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** The petitioner shall not be arrested till the next posting date.” 6. Today, when the matter came up for consideration, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Investigating Officer already interrogated the petitioner and further custodial interrogation is not necessary. If that be the case, this bail application can be allowed directing the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer once again to complete the procedure. 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** B.A.No.7349 of 2024 6 2025:KER:27121 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** **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: 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 B.A.No.7349 of 2024 7 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27121 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 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. B.A.No.7349 of 2024 8 2025:KER:27121 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 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 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 B.A.No.7349 of 2024 9 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27121 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 B.A.No.7349 of 2024 10 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27121 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** DM