Vishnu M Nair & Others vs State of Kerala & Manisha R Nair

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1945 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 5079 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED PERSONS 1 TO 4:`** ``` 1VISHNU M NAIR AGED 29 YEARS S/O.KESAVA MENON, AYYALATH (H), VAZHAPPALLY.P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686673, NOW RESIDING AT AYYALATH (H), KALLETUMKARA DESOM, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR – 680 683 ``` ``` 2BINU K MENON AGED 53 YEARS W/O.KESAVA MENON, AYYALATH (H), KALLETTUMKARA DESOM, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680683 ``` ``` 3JISHNU AGED 27 YEARS S/O.KESHAVA MENON, AYYALATH (H), KALLETTUMKARA DESOM, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680683 ``` ``` 4ARAVINDAN AGED 40 YEARS S/O.SOMASHEKHARAN NAIR, PALAZHI HOUSE, SHANTHANPARA.P.O, IDUKKI, PIN - 685619 ``` ``` BY ADVS. N.ASHOK KUMAR N.C.SAJITH ARJUN S.KURUPP MANOJ K. JOHN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2MANISHA R NAIR AGED 24 YEARS D/O.MRS.SREEJA & MR.RAJESH, CHENETH HOUSE, PULLU, ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.5079 OF 2023 ``` 2 ``` ALAPPAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680641 ``` ``` BY ADVS. Jithin Babu a babu CLETUS THOTTAPILLY(K/2245/1999) ARUN SAMUEL(K/940/2016) ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SMT. MAYA M.N., PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.5079 OF 2023 ``` 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **-----------------------------Bail Appl. No.5079 of 2023 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 27[th] day of July, 2023** ## **ORDER** This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) 2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.1392/2020 of Anthikkad Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Section 420, 465, 468, 120-B r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The above case is registered based on a private complaint filed by the defacto complainant before the Judicial 1[st] Class Magistrate Court No:II, Thrissur, which was forwarded to the Court concerned under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. ``` BAIL APPL. NO.5079 OF 2023 ``` 4 3. The prosecution case is that the accused persons made the defacto complainant to believe that the 1[st] petitioner herein is working in British Airways and he will arrange a job for the 2[nd] respondent herein in British Airways. On the basis of the same, the 2[nd] respondent decided to marry the 1[st] petitioner in the month of November 2020 and an engagement ceremony was conducted on 25.01.2020. It is submitted that the 1[st] petitioner was working as an Accountant in the British Airways and the he was unable to work due to health problems and hence he resigned from the job. Thereafter, the 2[nd] respondent withdrawn from the marriage and filed a complaint. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and also the counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent seriously opposed the bail application. ``` BAIL APPL. NO.5079 OF 2023 ``` 5 It is an admitted fact that the case is registered based on a private complaint filed by the defacto complainant before the jurisdictional Court, which was forwarded under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. There are certain allegations raised by the 2[nd] respondent in the complaint. But it is a matter to be investigated by the investigating officer. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary. The petitioners can be directed to co-operate with the investigation. There can also be a direction to the petitioners to surrender before the investigating officer, within a time frame, so that the investigating officer can interrogate the petitioner and thereafter release them on bail. 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** 6 ``` BAIL APPL. NO.5079 OF 2023 ``` **Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870)** , after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same in as much 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. 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. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation; 2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum ``` BAIL APPL. NO.5079 OF 2023 ``` **==> picture [7 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned; 3. 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 them 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; ``` BAIL APPL. NO.5079 OF 2023 ``` **==> picture [7 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** 6. 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. Sd/- nvj **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE**