High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2025-04-02Granted

Seetha N.R. v. State of Kerala and KSFE (Pattanakkad Branch)

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 4206 OF 2025

Neutral Citation:2025:KER:28383

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Judgment Date: 2025-04-02
Court Decision / Holding: The Bail Application is allowed. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks for interrogation. If arrest is proposed, the petitioner shall be released on bail on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of like amount. The petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court and shall not commit a similar offence. The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation; recoveries may be effected as necessary. Bail can be cancelled for violation of these conditions. The court places reliance on Chidambaram, Siddharth, Manish Sisodia, Sushila Aggarwal and Anzar Azeez to justify the bail framework in this Kerala context.
Final Disposition: Granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Seetha N.R.

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
The Station House Officer, Pattanakkad Police Station, Alappuzha District
The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., represented by its Branch Manager, Pattanakkad Branch, Pattanakkad, Alappuzha

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Suneesh Kumar R.
• B. Bipin

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. G Sudheer
• Sri. Salil Narayanan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Bail Application, heard by a Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, concerns Seetha N.R., the third accused in Crime No. 179/2025 of Pattanakkad Police Station, Alappuzha. The petitioner is accused of conspiracy to misappropriate KSFE funds by forging a salary certificate and obtaining Rs 4 lakh transferred to the account of the first accused. The de facto complainant is the KSFE manager. The case involves offences under sections 120B, 409, 419, 465, 468, 471 and 420 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioner argues that the entire amount due to KSFE has been paid and custodial interrogation is unnecessary; thus bail with strict conditions should be granted. The court recalls Supreme Court bail jurisprudence: bail is the rule and jail the exception, with the need to safeguard personal liberty; in Siddharth v State of UP, and Manish Sisodia v CBI, and Sushila Aggarwal, the principle is reaffirmed. The order cites Anzar Azeez v State of Kerala as applicable to this case. The court directs interrogation before the IO within two weeks, and if arrest is proposed, release on bail on a bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties. The petitioner must cooperate, refrain from leaving India, and avoid similar offences; bail may be cancelled for violation. The order is limited to deciding this bail application.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha SanhitaSections 120-B, 409, 419, 465, 468, 471 and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
Personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate
Distinction between existence of power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it
Even in grave economic offences bail may be granted
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another
Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala (principle applicable)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Seetha N.R. contends that the entire amount due to KSFE has been paid, and there is no justification for custodial interrogation when the investigation has not established flight risk or coercion. Drawing on established bail jurisprudence, she argues that bail is the rule and imprisonment is the exception, and that the accused should not be deprived of liberty for a preliminary investigation when the funds have been made good. She urges the court to release her on bail with stringent conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation, including appearing before the IO within two weeks, undergoing interrogation, and providing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties. She also asks that she be allowed to remain free unless and until arrest is warranted and to refrain from leaving India. She submits that the prosecution can continue with the investigation and that recoveries can be effected even while the accused is on bail, citing Sushila Aggarwal and Anzar Azeez for Kerala practice. She also places reliance on Chidambaram, Siddharth, and Manish Sisodia to support the principle that bail should be granted while ensuring fair trial.

Contentions of Respondents

The Respondents state that investigation requires custodial interrogation only to collect further evidence. They acknowledge that if the entire amount is paid, custodial interrogation might not be strictly necessary, but they argue that the court should consider the seriousness of the offences including conspiracy to misappropriate funds, forged certificate, etc., and ensure caution and recoveries. They request the court to impose conditions in line with the standard bail framework and to maintain the balance between the accused's personal liberty and the State's interest in an effective investigation. They rely on the statutory framework and case law to justify procedural safeguards, including the right to recoveries and ensuring the accused's presence for interrogation; they support the proposed conditions and emphasize that the bail order must be carefully calibrated to preserve the investigation's integrity.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited to support bail as the rule and the general principle that bail is the norm.
Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another	2021 (5) KHC 353	Positive	Cited for the emphasis on personal liberty and nuanced bail considerations.
Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others	1994 (4) SCC 260	Positive	Cited for the distinction between power to arrest and justification for arrest.
Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation	2023 KHC 6961	Positive	Cited for the proposition that grave economic offences do not automatically bar bail.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited for the bail framework and aftercare during investigation.
Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala	2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260	Positive	Cited as applicable principle in Kerala bail jurisprudence.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Seetha N.R. v. State of Kerala and KSFE (Pattanakkad Branch) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

1 **BAIL APPL. NO. 4206 OF 2025** **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## 2025:KER:28383 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4206 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.179/2025 OF PATANAKKAD POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA** ## **PETITIONER(S)/3RD ACCUSED:** **SEETHA.N.R, AGED 54 YEARS W/O RAJU.P, S.R.VILLA, WARD NO. XXI, CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY, CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA (PO), ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688524** **BY ADVS. SUNEESH KUMAR R. B.BIPIN** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031** - **2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PATTANAKAD POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 688530** - **3 THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PATTANAKAD BRANCH, PATTANAKKAD, ALAPPUZHA (IS SUOMOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE BAIL APPLICATION AS PER ORDER DATED 02.04.2025).** **BY ADV. SRI.G SUDHEER, PP SRI. SALIL NARAYANAN, SC - KSFE** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 **BAIL APPL. NO. 4206 OF 2025** **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## 2025:KER:28383 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **–-------------------------------------** **B.A. No. 4206 of 2025** **-------------------------------------Dated this the 02[nd] day of April, 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. 179/2025 of Pattanakkadu Police Station, Alappuzha. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Secs.120-B, 409, 419, 465, 468, 471 & 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The prosecution case is that, accused Nos.1 to 3, with the intention to get wrongful gain, committed criminal conspiracy to misappropriate money from the KSFE, Pattanakad branch wherein the de-facto complainant is the Manager, the 3[rd] accused issued forged salary certificate being the Headmistress of Town LP School, Cherthala, Alappuzha 3 **BAIL APPL. NO. 4206 OF 2025** **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28383 District, in the name of the 2[nd] accused by personating her as teacher of the said school. It is further alleged that when the forged salary certificate was sent for confirmation, the 3[rd] accused gave confirmation and based on that confirmation, an amount of Rupees four lakh was sanctioned to the 1[st] accused and the amount was transferred to the account of the 1[st] accused maintained at the Pattanakad branch of SBI and thus the accused cheated the KSFE and the defacto complainant. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner, the Public Prosecutor and the Standing Counsel appearing for the KSFE. 5. When this case came up for consideration, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire amount due to the KSFE is paid by the petitioner-applicant. This Court directed the Standing Counsel to verify the same. The Standing Counsel submitted that the entire amount due to the KSFE is paid. If that is the case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary. The petitioner can be directed to appear before the investigating officer. After interrogation, if 4 **BAIL APPL. NO. 4206 OF 2025** **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28383 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 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 5 **BAIL APPL. NO. 4206 OF 2025** **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28383 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.” 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 6 **BAIL APPL. NO. 4206 OF 2025** **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28383 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, she 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-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 7 **BAIL APPL. NO. 4206 OF 2025** **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28383 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 she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she 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 8 **BAIL APPL. NO. 4206 OF 2025** **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:28383 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** DM