Reena Philip and Mithun K. Chittilappilly v. State of Kerala

B.A.No.4594 of 2025 1 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30371 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947** **BAIL APPL. NO. 4594 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.94/2025 OF INFOPARK POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2 & 3:** - **1 REENA PHILIP, AGED 38 YEARS W/O MITHUN K CHITTILAPPILLY , AGED 38 YEARS , CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE , BYE PASS ROAD , VENNALA P.O , ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682028** - **2 MITHUN K. CHITTILAPPILLY, AGED 44 YEARS S/O KOCHOUSEPH CHITTILAPPILLY , CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, BYE PASS ROAD , VENNALA P.O , ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682028** **BY ADVS. KRISHNA PRASAD. S SINDHU S KAMATH SWAPNA S.K. ROHINI NAIR SURAJ KUMAR D. SUNILKUMAR K.K. A.KARTHIKA SIVAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** B.A.No.4594 of 2025 2 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30371 **BY ADV. PP – SMT. SEENA C** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.4594 of 2025 3 2025:KER:30371 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A.No.4594 of 2025 ------------------------------Dated this the 08[th] day of April, 2025 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2. Petitioners are accused Nos.2 & 3 in Crime No.94/2025 of Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam. The above case is registered against the petitioners and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 351, 61(2), 316, 318, 336(3), 340(2) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'). 3. The prosecution case is that, in December 2023, the accused persons who are the defacto complainant's wife, stepdaughter and her husband conspired together at Flat No.1F Noel Green Nature, near IMG Junction, Kakkanad and forged the signature of the defacto complainant in the money bonds including that of Rupees Six lakhs in Bond No. VIII 0006 of Indel Money Ltd B.A.No.4594 of 2025 4 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30371 and Rupees Sixteen lakhs in Bond No. NCDT 0121002377, NCDT 0119002078, NCDT 0119002077, NCDT 0119002076, NCDT 0119002066 of ICL Fincorp and the 1[st] accused misappropriated the amount with an intention to cheat and deceive the defacto complainant so as to make wrongful gains for the accused persons and cause damages to the defacto complainant. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said offences. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3. The 2[nd] accused is the step daughter of the defacto complainant and the 3[rd] accused is the husband of the 2[nd] accused. The counsel submitted that the main allegation is against the 1[st] accused. It is also submitted that, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no criminal offence is made out. It is also submitted that, matrimonial disputes are pending between the 1[st] accused and the defacto complainant. 6. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation B.A.No.4594 of 2025 5 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30371 is only started and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioners is serious. But the fact remains that the case is registered based on a private complaint filed before the jurisdictional court which was referred to the police by the learned Magistrate. It is also a fact that the main allegation is against the 1[st] accused, who is the mother of the 1[st] petitioner. It seems that there are some matrimonial disputes pending between the 1[st] accused and the defacto complainant. Petitioners are the daughter and son-in-law of the 1[st] accused. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. 8. 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 B.A.No.4594 of 2025 6 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30371 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. 9. 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- B.A.No.4594 of 2025 7 2025:KER:30371 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 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.” 10. 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. 11. 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 petitioners 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 B.A.No.4594 of 2025 8 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30371 petitioners, they shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned. 3. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 5. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of B.A.No.4594 of 2025 9 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30371 which they are 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 petitioners even while the petitioners are 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 petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, B.A.No.4594 of 2025 10 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30371 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** DM