Shameer Salahudheen & Mishajudheeen v State of Kerala and Nisa; Sabu Basheer v State of Kerala and Nisa

BAIL APPL.Nos.2634,2577, 2579 OF 2025 1 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27187 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947** **BAIL APPL. NO. 2577 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.127/2025 OF Atholy Police Station, Kozhikode** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 SHAMEER SALAHUDHEEN AGED 32 YEARS** - **S/O SALAHUDHEEN, SHAMEER MANZIL, VENCHEMP, PUNALUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691333** **2 MISHAJUDHEEN AGED 38 YEARS S/O MAARI SAAHIB, KAIRALI NAGAR, AYATHIL, KOLLAM CITY, PIN - 691021** **BY ADVS. AMAL PARTHASARADHY GIBI.C.GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** - **2 NISA** **AGED 45 YEARS D/O MOOSAKOYA, THAZHEPEEDIKAVEETTIL OLIVU, KONAGANNUR, ATHOLI P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673315** BAIL APPL.Nos.2634,2577, 2579 OF 2025 2 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27187 **BY ADVS. MUHAMMED SHAFI .M T.RASINI(K/000090/2017) ADHEELA NOWRIN(K/000855/2020) RAMEESA RASHEED(K/004484/2024)** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **sri.noushad.k.a, sr.pp** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2579/2025, 2634/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL.Nos.2634,2577, 2579 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:27187 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947** **BAIL APPL. NO. 2579 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.128/2025 OF Atholy Police Station, Kozhikode** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 SHAMEER SALAVUDHEEN AGED 32 YEARS S/O SALAVUDHEEN, SHAMEER MANZIL, VENCHEMPU, PUNALUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691333** - **2 MISHAJUDHEEN AGED 38 YEARS** - **S/OMAARI SAHIB, KAIRALI NAGAR, AYATHIL, KOLLAM, PIN - 691021** **BY ADVS. AMAL PARTHASARADHY GIBI.C.GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** - **2 NISA K AGED 45 YEARS W/O ABDUL GAFOOR, THAZHEPEEDIKAVEETTIL OLIVU,** BAIL APPL.Nos.2634,2577, 2579 OF 2025 4 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27187 **KONGANNUR, ATHOLI P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673315** **BY ADVS. MUHAMMED SHAFI .M T.RASINI(K/000090/2017) ADHEELA NOWRIN(K/000855/2020) RAMEESA RASHEED(K/004484/2024)** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2577/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL.Nos.2634,2577, 2579 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:27187 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947** **BAIL APPL. NO. 2634 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.128/2025 OF Atholy Police Station, Kozhikode** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SABU BASHEER AGED 42 YEARS S/O BASHEER, PROPRIETOR YR TRADING, AYOOR, EDAMULAKKAL, KOLLAM CITY, PIN - 691306** **BY ADVS. AMAL PARTHASARADHY GIBI.C.GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** - **2 NISA K AGED 45 YEARS D/O MOOSAKOYA, THAZHEPEEDIKAVEETTIL OLIVU, KONGANNUR, ATHOLI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673315** **BY ADVS. MUHAMMED SHAFI .M** BAIL APPL.Nos.2634,2577, 2579 OF 2025 6 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27187 **T.RASINI(K/000090/2017) ADHEELA NOWRIN(K/000855/2020) RAMEESA RASHEED(K/004484/2024)** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2577/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL.Nos.2634,2577, 2579 OF 2025 7 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27187 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **–-------------------------------------** **B.A. Nos. 2577, 2579 & 2634 of 2024 -----------------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of March, 2025** ## **O R D E R** These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). 2. These bail applications are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these cases by a common order. 3. Petitioners in B.A No.2577/2025 are the accused in Crime No.127/2025 of Atholy Police Station and petitioners in B.A Nos. 2634/2025 & 2579/2025 are the accused in Crime No.128/2025 of Atholy Police Station. 4. The allegation in Crime No.127/2025 is that, the petitioner assured the defacto complainant that, they will deliver household items to the establishment run by the defacto complainant. It is alleged that the accused persons assured to BAIL APPL.Nos.2634,2577, 2579 OF 2025 8 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27187 the defacto complainant that, they will deal with all GST related matters of the defacto complainant. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 5 made fake bill of Rs.17,78,100/- in the name of the defacto complainant's company, to the company's account with an intention to cheat the defacto complainant and her husband. 5. The prosecution case in Crime No.128/2025 is that, the accused Nos.1 to 4 assured the defacto complainant from November 2023 onwards that, they will deliver household items to the establishment run by the defacto complainant named as "Olive Enterprises". It is alleged that the accused persons assured to the defacto complainant that they will deal with all GST related matters of the defacto complainant. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 4 made fake bills of Rs.99,65,662/- in the name of the defacto complainant's company. 6. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. BAIL APPL.Nos.2634,2577, 2579 OF 2025 9 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27187 7. When these bail applications came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order on 19.03.2025. “Petitioners in these bail applications are the accused in Crime Nos.127/2025 & 128/2025 of Atholy Police Station. 2. When these bail applications came up for consideration, this Court directed the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer. Now, it is submitted that the petitioners were not able to appear before the Investigating Officer because they apprehend arrest in connection with another case. That is not a reason for not appearing before the Investigating Officer. When the petitioners are appearing before the Investigating Officer based on the order from this Court, the police officer cannot record the arrest of the petitioners in connection with another case. At this stage, the counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are ready to appear before the Investigating Officer once again. 3. If that be the case, the petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 24.03.2025. The petitioners shall not be arrested till the next posting date. Post on 28.03.2025.” 8. Today, when the matter came up for consideration, the Public Prosecutor submitted that no further BAIL APPL.Nos.2634,2577, 2579 OF 2025 **==> picture [12 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27187 custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary in these crimes. There may be a direction to co-operate with the investigation. If that is the case, there is no question of custodial interrogation. The counsel appearing for the defacto complainant seriously opposed the bail application. But, the investigating officer submits before this Court that no custodial interrogation is necessary. Therefore, the petitioners can be directed to appear before the investigating officer once again to complete the procedures. If the arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to release the petitioners on bail, after imposing stringent conditions. 9. 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 BAIL APPL.Nos.2634,2577, 2579 OF 2025 11 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27187 accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. 10. 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-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.” ## 11. In **Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of** BAIL APPL.Nos.2634,2577, 2579 OF 2025 12 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27187 **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. 12. 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 petitioners, they 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. BAIL APPL.Nos.2634,2577, 2579 OF 2025 13 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27187 3. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners 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. 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 which they are suspected. BAIL APPL.Nos.2634,2577, 2579 OF 2025 14 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27187 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 BAIL APPL.Nos.2634,2577, 2579 OF 2025 15 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:27187 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