RAMESH SWAMI v. STATE OF KERALA & SUB INSPECTOR OF KALIKAVU POLICE STATION

``` 2025:KER:29335 ``` ``` 1 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 3487 OF 2025`** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3487 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.120/2025 OF Kalikavu Police Station, Malappuram ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:`** ``` RAMESH SWAMI AGED 45 YEARS S/O. SREEDHARAN, CHENTHULLY HOUSE, POOKKOTTUMANNA, CHUNGATHARA, MALAPPURAM., PIN - 679334 ``` ``` BY ADVS. R.RANJITH (MANJERI) NOUFAL A. SEETHAL P.S. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KALIKAVU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 676525`** ## **`SR PP-NOUSHAD K A`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:29335 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3487 OF 2025 ``` ``` 2 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------B.A.No.3487 of 2025 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 04[th] day of April, 2025** ## **ORDER** This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.120/2025 of the Kalikavu Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 318, 316(1), and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, BNS) and Section 17 of Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958. 3. The prosecution case is that, in the month of February, 2020, the 1[st] accused assured the defacto complainant that if he could give Rs.one crore as debt to the 1[st] accused for getting fund to his charitable trust from abroad, the money will be repaid and money for constructing house for 10 poor people will also be given to him. For arranging the said ``` 2025:KER:29335 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3487 OF 2025 ``` ``` 3 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** amount, the properties in the name of the the complainant and his wife were mortgaged with the accused Nos.2 and 3 with higher interest rates and from the said amount, accused Nos.2 and 3 transferred Rs.30 Lakhs to the 1[st] accused directly on 02.12.2020 and the complaint transferred Rs.18 lakhs from the amount received by the complainant from accused Nos. 2 and 3 to the account of the 1[st] accused and further Rs.26,50,000/was given to the 1[st] accused directly in cash from the house of the 1[st] accused on the same day. It is alleged that there are other transactions also. Subsequently the 1[st] accused did not repay the amount within time and the 2[nd] accused threatened the defacto complainant and for not losing the properties mortgaged, the title of the property in the name of the wife was transferred in the name of the 3[rd] accused. Thus by the property transferred and by the huge interest paid, the defacto complaint lost Rs.2,25,00,000/- and the accused in furtherance of common intention, conspired together for obtaining the money and hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner ``` 2025:KER:29335 ``` ``` 4 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 3487 OF 2025`** and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. When this bail application came up for consideration on 26.03.2025, this Court passed the following order: “The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was some communication gap and therefore, he was not able to communicate the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer, as ordered by this Court on 18.03.2025. If that is the case, the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 28.03.2025, as ordered by this Court on 18.03.2025. The other directions in the order dated 18.03.2025 will continue. Post on 04.04.2025.” 6. Today, when the matter came up for consideration, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner already appeared before the Investigating Officer and no further custodial interrogation is necessary. If that is the case, the petitioner can be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer once again so that the procedure formalities can be completed. If arrest is recorded, there can ``` 2025:KER:29335 ``` ``` 5 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 3487 OF 2025`** be a direction to release the petitioner on bail. 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 ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3487 OF 2025 ``` ``` 6 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:29335` 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 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 ``` 7 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:29335` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 3487 OF 2025`** 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 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 co- ``` 2025:KER:29335 ``` ``` 8 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 3487 OF 2025`** 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 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 ``` 2025:KER:29335 ``` ``` 9 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 3487 OF 2025`** ## **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 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