SABAR v. STATE OF KERALA

B.A.No.4407 of 2025 1 2025:KER:29850 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4407 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.494/2025 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR PETITIONER(S):** **SABAR AGED 40 YEARS S/O SAIFUDEEN, KALLUNGAL HOUSE, KARAKATHIYALAM DESOM, EDAVILANGU VILLAGE, THRISSUR RURAL, KERALA, PIN - 680671** **BY ADVS. D.VIMAL DEV GIFFIN SHALOO AKHILA JOSEPH CHINJU KURUVILLA SNEHAPRABHA** **RESPONDENT(S):** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** **BY ADV. SR PP – SRI. NOUSHAD K A** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.4407 of 2025 2 2025:KER:29850 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A.No.4407 of 2025 ------------------------------Dated this the 07[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. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.494/2025 of Kodungalloor Police Station, Thrissur. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused was employed as the manager of the complainant's company named “Dreem Colers". It is alleged that, during the period between 2021 to 2023 the petitioner misappropriated the funds of the company for his personal gains. It is alleged that the petitioner/accused caused huge liability and loss to the company. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said offences. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the B.A.No.4407 of 2025 3 2025:KER:29850 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the crime was registered based on a private complaint filed before the jurisdictional court which was forwarded to the police under Section 173(3) of the BNSS. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grants him bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly the crime was registered based on a private complaint filed before the jurisdictional court. The only offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 406 IPC. The maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offence under Section 406 IPC is imprisonment for three years. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, I think the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Therefore, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. 8. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the B.A.No.4407 of 2025 4 2025:KER:29850 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 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. 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. B.A.No.4407 of 2025 5 2025:KER:29850 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** (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 selfesteem 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 petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo B.A.No.4407 of 2025 6 2025:KER:29850 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 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 permission of the jurisdictional Court. B.A.No.4407 of 2025 7 2025:KER:29850 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 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. B.A.No.4407 of 2025 8 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:29850 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** DM