Muhammed Unais N.T. v. State of Kerala

BAIL APPL. NO. 7933 OF 2024 1 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27186 **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. 7933 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.203/2024 OF Kadavanthra Police Station, Ernakulam** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **MUHAMMED UNAIS.N.T AGED 19 YEARS S/O. ALI.N.T., NHARAMBITHODI HOUSE, PULAMANTHOLE, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 679323** **BY ADVS. K.M.FIROZ M.SHAJNA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE , KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM CITY, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682020** ## **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. 7933 OF 2024 2 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27186 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **–-------------------------------------** **B.A. No. 7933 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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No. 203/24 of Kadavanthra Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Secs. 420, 406 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that somebody had sent links to the WhatsApp number 8095879753 of de-facto complainant herein, and offered to pay Rs. 50/- for liking the advertisements of the companies, thereafter created the group of people who likes the advertisements sent through telegram links and included the de-facto complainant into that group. BAIL APPL. NO. 7933 OF 2024 3 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27186 Thereafter, that person demanded to pay 1000 rupees to 500000 rupees several times for completing the task of liking the advertisement links for which Rs.20000/- paid to the defacto complainant and also offered to pay Rs.300000/- for 3 Consecutive times. Offering the said amount, it is alleged that an amount of Rs.300000/- was paid by the de-facto complainant to the another account as 3 portions. Thereafter, again an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid through Google pay of that person. Therefore, it is alleged that that person cheated the defacto complainant by not returning the said amounts. Thus, the accused committed the above offences. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. When this bail application came up for consideration on ## 20.03.2025, this Court passed the following order. “The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on 24.03.2025. The Investigating Officer shall interrogate the petitioner and file a report before this Court after interrogation as to whether custodial interrogation of the BAIL APPL. NO. 7933 OF 2024 4 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27186 ## petitioner is necessary. The petitioner shall not be arrested till the next posting date. Post on 28.03.2025. Issue a copy of this order to the Public Prosecutor who will communicate the same to the Investigating Officer concerned.” 5. Today, when the matter came up for consideration, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner appeared before the investigating officer and there may be a direction to co-operate with the investigation. If that is the case, the petitioner can be directed to appear before the investigating officer once again. If the arrest is recorded, 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 7933 OF 2024 5 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27186 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: 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 7933 OF 2024 6 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27186 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 Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- BAIL APPL. NO. 7933 OF 2024 7 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27186 (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. 5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of BAIL APPL. NO. 7933 OF 2024 8 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27186 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 7933 OF 2024 9 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27186 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