Seetha N.R. v. State of Kerala & Others (Bail Application No. 3615 of 2025)

1 **BAIL APPL. NO. 3615 OF 2025** 2025:KER:27624 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947** **BAIL APPL. NO. 3615 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.181/2025 OF Patanakkad Police Station, Alappuzha** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **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:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** - **2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PATTANAKAD POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,, PIN - 688530** - **3 THE BRANCH MANAGER, KSFE PATTANAKAD BRANCH, PATTANAKAD, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688531** **BY ADV Salil Narayanan K.A.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 **BAIL APPL. NO. 3615 OF 2025** 2025:KER:27624 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **–-------------------------------------** **B.A. No. 3615 of 2025** **-------------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] 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 the 3[rd] accused in crime No. 181/2025 of Pattanakkad Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Secs.61(2), 316(5), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 318(4), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 3. The prosecution case is that, accused Nos. 1 to 3 with an intention to obtain wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss to KSFE, committed criminal conspiracy to misappropriate money from the KSFE, Pattanakkad. It is alleged that the 3[rd] accused being the Headmistress of Town LP School, Cherthala issued forged salary certificates, in the name 3 **BAIL APPL. NO. 3615 OF 2025** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27624 of A1 and A2, personating them as teachers of the said school. It is further alleged that, when the forged salary certificate was sent for confirmation, the third accused gave information and based on that confirmation, A1 obtained an amount of Rs.7,97,000/- towards chitty prize from chitty No.15/2023-29 and Rs.5,00,000/- as personal loan KPL 268 from KSFE Branch, Cherthala and thus cheated KSFE and the defacto complainant. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 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 the arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to release the 4 **BAIL APPL. NO. 3615 OF 2025** 2025:KER:27624 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 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. 5 **BAIL APPL. NO. 3615 OF 2025** 2025:KER:27624 (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 before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation. 6 **BAIL APPL. NO. 3615 OF 2025** 2025:KER:27624 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 4. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 7 **BAIL APPL. NO. 3615 OF 2025** 2025:KER:27624 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 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 **BAIL APPL. NO. 3615 OF 2025** **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27624 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** SKS