Nithin Antony v. State of Kerala

``` 2025:KER:26965 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4033 OF 2025`** # **`1 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. 4033 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1820/2024 OF Thiruvalla Police Station ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` NITHIN ANTONY AGED 39 YEARS S/O ANTONY, MURIYANKHAVUNJAL HOUSE, KOTTARADI, PADIYOTTUCHAL (PO).,KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670511 ``` ``` BY ADVS. M.V.AMARESAN S.S.ARAVIND ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`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: ``` ``` 2025:KER:26965 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4033 OF 2025 ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------B.A.No.4033 of 2025** ## **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of March, 2025** ## **ORDER** This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1820/2024 of Thiruvalla Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC). 3. The prosecution case is that, with an intention to cheat the defacto complainant, the accused made the complainant believe that he would be given a job visa to Armania and an amount of Rs.2.6 lakhs was collected. It is alleged that instead of job visa, a tourist visa is provided. The amount is also not returned. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. ``` 2025:KER:26965 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4033 OF 2025`** **`3`** 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is not correct. The counsel also submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offences alleged are not attracted. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the report received by him from the Investigating Officer, no criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioner. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the offence alleged against the petitioner is very serious. But no criminal antecedent is alleged against the petitioner. According to the prosecution, a job visa offered and the amount is collected, and a tourist visa is issued. In such circumstances, whether the ingredients of Section 420 IPC is attracted is a matter to be investigated. I do not want to make any observation about the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. ``` 2025:KER:26965 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4033 OF 2025`** ``` 4 ``` 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 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 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:26965` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4033 OF 2025`** **`5`** 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 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, I think bail can be granted after imposing stringent conditions. Therefore, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:26965` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4033 OF 2025`** ``` 6 ``` 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. 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 ``` 2025:KER:26965 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4033 OF 2025`** **`7`** 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 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 ``` 2025:KER:26965 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4033 OF 2025`** **`8`** 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. JV sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE**