High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-04-23Bail granted to petitioner on terms specified; ...

Muhammed Arshad v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 3223 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-04-23
Court Decision / Holding: The application is allowed. The petitioner Muhammed Arshad is ordered to be released on bail on a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties of like amount, in terms of the stated conditions. Conditions include: appearance before the Investigating Officer on Saturdays, non-inducement and non-tampering with witnesses, not committing any offence during bail, surrender of passport (or furnishing an affidavit if none), and the power of the court to cancel bail on violation. The Investigating Officer may continue investigations or recoveries while the petitioner is on bail, in line with Sushila Aggarwal’s principles on bail conditions.
Final Disposition: Bail granted to petitioner on terms specified; bond and sureties posted; standard bail conditions imposed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Muhammed Arshad

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• C.K. Sreejith Kozhipurath
• Praseetha Gopalakrishnan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri C.S. Hrithwik (Senior Public Prosecutor)
• Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under section 439 CrPC filed by accused No.2 in Crime No.244/2024 of Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam, challenging detention linked to alleged offences under Sections 384 and 420 r/w 34 IPC and Section 66D IT Act. The petitioner, Muhammed Arshad, was arrested on 17 March 2024. The prosecution contends that the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, impersonated Delhi Police to extort Rs.19,90,000 from the complainant to “exonerate” him from an RBI surveillance issue, thereby enabling illicit funds flow. The defense asserts total innocence, arguing that the petitioner is a dealer in digital currencies like Bitcoin, operating legally under RBI norms; any loss to the complainant would be due to the complainant’s transactions, not the petitioner’s. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 17 March 2024; investigation is said to be complete and recoveries effected. The prosecution opposes bail, citing ongoing inquiry and risk of tampering. The court cites established bail principles, including presumption of innocence (Sanjay Chandra), bail as the rule (Dataram Singh), and protections for undertrial detainees under Article 21 (Raneef; Hussainara Khatoon). It notes the lack of antecedents, nearly completed investigation, and no ongoing danger to society, and grants bail with Rs.1,00,000 bond, two sureties, and standard conditions, including periodic appearances, non-tampering, no new offences, passport surrender, and potential cancellation for violation, with Sushila Aggarwal guiding bail-condition framework.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 384 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Presumption of innocence (Sanjay Chandra v. CBI)
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception (Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.)
Undertrial detention infringing Article 21 of the Constitution (State of Kerala v. Raneef; Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar)
Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution
Bail conditions may be imposed to ensure compliance (Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent and falsely implicated. He argued the offences do not attract against him; the petitioner is a dealer in digital currencies like Bitcoin, permissible under RBI norms, with a global client base. Any monetary loss to the complainant is contends to have arisen from the complainant’s own transactions, not the petitioner’s acts. The petitioner has remained in custody since 17 March 2024, the investigation is essentially complete, and recovery has been effected; hence further detention is unnecessary. He stressed lack of criminal antecedents and asserted that bail should be granted to enable the defence and preserve livelihood. The plea invoked presumption of innocence and Article 21 rights, urging the court to exercise its discretion with compassion and avoid penal detention absent contrary circumstances. The defence also argued that the offences require establishing participation and direct involvement, which is not clearly proven at this stage.

Contentions of Respondents

Prosecution contended that investigation is ongoing and there is a realistic risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if the accused is released. The offences involve impersonation of Delhi Police to extort funds; the scale of alleged cybercrime and the possibility of re-offending warrants cautious handling. The State emphasized that the case demands continued inquiry to protect the integrity of the investigation and to secure evidence. It urged the court to refrain from releasing the accused at this juncture, citing the need to safeguard public and official interests and maintain judicial processes.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI	(2012) 1 SCC 40	Positive	Supports presumption of innocence; bail should not be denied solely on prior conduct.
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.	(2018) 3 SCC 22	Positive	Bail is the rule; detention is exception; discretion must be judicious and compassionate.
State of Kerala v. Raneef	(2011) 1 SCC 784	Positive	Undertrials shouldn’t face indefinite detention; Article 21 protection informs bail considerations.
Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar	(1980) 1 SCC 81	Positive	Long pre-trial detention is unreasonable; supports rights-based bail considerations.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Authorizes explicit bail-condition framework that courts may apply to ensure compliance.

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 Muhammed Arshad 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. 3223 OF 2024 1 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 3RD VAISAKHA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 3223 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.244/2024 OF Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.2550 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER/S:** **MUHAMMED ARSHAD AGED 21 YEARS C/O. ASHRAF, ANAS VILLA, KALLURAVI, KANHANGAD SOUTH, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671531** **BY ADVS. C.K.SREEJITH KOZHIPURATH PRASEETHA GOPALAKRISHNAN** **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 3223 OF 2024 2 Dated this the 23[rd] day of April, 2024 ## **O R D E R** This is the second application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 2[nd] accused in Crime No.244/2024 of Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 384 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The petitioner was arrested on 17.03.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case, is that; the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, to make unlawful gain for themselves and unlawful loss to the defacto complainant, telephoned him and impersonated themselves as Delhi Police and told him that someone was using his HDFC Account for unlawful activities. In order to exonerate him from the investigation and to legalize his funds through RBI super vision account, he has to pay the accused an amount of BAIL APPL. NO. 3223 OF 2024 3 Rs.19,90,000/-. Accordingly, the accused extorted the above said amount from the account of the defacto complainant. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. Sreejith.C.K, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. The offences alleged against the petitioner will not be attracted. The petitioner is only a dealer in digital currency like BITCOIN and other digital currencies, which is permissible by the Reserve Bank of India. The petitioner has customers all over the world. The defacto complainant may have lost his money while doing such transactions. However, the petitioner cannot be accused of the monetary transaction done by the defacto complainant. In any case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 17.03.2024, the investigation in BAIL APPL. NO. 3223 OF 2024 4 the case is complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him tampering with the evidence and sabotaging the investigation. Therefore, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation is that the accused in furtherance of their common intention impersonated themselves as Delhi Police and received an amount of Rs.19,90,000/- from the defacto complainant. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 35 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. 7. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,** [2012 1 SCC 40], the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is BAIL APPL. NO. 3223 OF 2024 5 the presumption of innocence, until a person is found guilty. Any imprisonment prior to conviction is to be considered as punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct. 8. In **Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.,** [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is the rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. Even though the grant of bail is entirely the discretion of the court, it has to be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of each case and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner. 9. In **State of Kerala v. Raneef,** [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has declared that undertrial prisoners detained in jail for indefinite BAIL APPL. NO. 3223 OF 2024 6 periods, without any sufficient reason or due to the delay in concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 10. In **Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar** [(1980) 1 SCC 81], the Honourable Supreme Court while dealing with a case of under trials, who suffered long incarceration, held that the procedure that keeps large number of people behind the bars without trial for long is unreasonable and unfair, and is not in conformity with the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 11. The principle of bail is the rule and jail is an exception is on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Once the charge sheet is filed, a strong case has to be made out for continuing a person BAIL APPL. NO. 3223 OF 2024 7 in judicial custody. The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society. 12. On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last one month, the investigation in the case is practically complete, the recovery has been effected and the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents, I am of the view that the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the application. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to BAIL APPL. NO. 3223 OF 2024 8 ## the following conditions: - (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is filed. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; - (ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure 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 or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; - (iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail; - (iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; - (v) In case of violation of any of the conditions BAIL APPL. NO. 3223 OF 2024 9 mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. - (vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. - (vii) 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]. sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** rkc/23.04.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 3223 OF 2024 10 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3223/2024** **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 244/2024 ON THE FILE OF INFOPARK POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAMDT. 1/3/2024** **Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MP. 741/2024 DATED 22/3/2024 Annexure A3 ORDER DATED 08-04-2024 IN BAIL APPL.2550/2024 ON HIGH COURT**