Shibilal S. v. State of Kerala

BAIL APPL. NO. 4184 OF 2025 1 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30843 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1947** **BAIL APPL. NO. 4184 OF 2025** **CRIME NO.952/2024 OF Pathanapuram Police Station, Kollam** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.1469 OF** **2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SHIBILAL S AGED 35 YEARS S/O.SUGATHAN, SHIJI NIVAS, PANAYARA, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695145** **BY ADVS. AKHIL SUSEENDRAN AISWARYA V.S.** ## **RESPONDENT/S** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **PP-G SUDHEER** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 4184 OF 2025 2 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30843 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **–-------------------------------------** **B.A. No.4184 of 2025 -------------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] 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.952/2024 of Pathanapuram Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Secs.370, 406, 420 and 506 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that A1 had induced the defacto complainant to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- on the assurance of securing him an employment in New Zealand. However, A1 secured the defacto complainant an employment in Cambodia. Consequently. A1 sent the defacto complainant to Cambodia. However, the defacto complainant was made to live in BAIL APPL. NO. 4184 OF 2025 3 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30843 inhumane conditions and do illegal activities. The defacto complainant was also made to pay Rs.2,50,000/- to the agent in Cambodia. It was with the intervention of the Indian Embassy in Cambodia that the defacto complainant could return back to India. A1 failed to keep up to her promise and has refused to return back the money to the defacto complainant. Thus, A1 has committed the above offences. 4. Heard. 5. When this bail application came up for consideration on 02.04.2025, this Court passed the following order. “The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 04.04.2025. The Investigating Officer can interrogate the petitioner and submit a report before this Court whether further custodial interrogation is necessary. Post on 09.04.2025. The petitioner shall not be arrested till then. ” 6. Today, when the matter came up for consideration, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner surrendered before the investigating officer and he BAIL APPL. NO. 4184 OF 2025 4 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30843 is interrogated. No further custodial interrogation is necessary. If that is the case, the petitioner can be directed to surrender once again to complete the procedures. If the arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to the petitioner to release the petitioner on bail, after imposing stringent conditions. 7. 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. 8. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4184 OF 2025 5 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30843 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.” ## 9. 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. 10. 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: BAIL APPL. NO. 4184 OF 2025 6 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30843 1. The petitioner 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 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4184 OF 2025 7 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30843 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 4184 OF 2025 8 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 2025:KER:30843 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 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