IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Kannan S/o Sukumaran - Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Bail Appl. Nos. 2272, 2275, 2276, 2277, 2279, 2280, 2281, 2283, 2287, 2289, 2290, 2291, 2297, 2298, 2299, 2300, 2301, 2302, 2327, 2328, 2329, 2333, 2334, 2344 of 2025
Decided On : 20-02-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 482 - Bail applications filed by the same petitioner in multiple crime numbers alleging offences under IPC and BUDS Act - The petitioner was previously in custody for 37 days and released on bail in a related case. The court noted that bail is the rule, and jail is the exception, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty. The principles established in relevant case law were considered, particularly regarding the conditions under which bail may be granted. (Paras 2 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
(B) Bail - The court granted bail under stringent conditions, highlighting the necessity for the accused to cooperate with the investigation and the authority of the investigating officer. (Paras 11 , 12 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused in multiple cases involving financial misconduct, with complaints of failure to return deposits made with a chit fund company.
Findings of Court:
The bail applications are allowed with conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and prevent further offences.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail given prior custody and related charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that personal liberty is paramount and that bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons to deny it.
Result: Bail applications allowed under conditions.
ORDER :
1. These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The petitioner in these bail applications is the same person and therefore I am disposing of these bail applications by a common order.
2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime Nos.371/2024, 461/2024, 499/2024, 747/2024, 388/2024, 500/2024, 31/2025, 549/2024, 550/2024, 34/2025, 551/2024, 47/2025, 379/2024, 380/2024, 455/2024, 68/2025, 381/2024, 350/2024, 498/2024, 552/2024, 553/2024, 554/2024, 555/2024 & 556/2024 of Vadanapally Police Station, Thrissur. The above cases are registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), 1860 and also under the provisions of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act (for short 'BUDS Act').
3. The prosecution case is that the Pravasi Syndicate Chits Private Limited (Malayali Kshema Nidhi Limited) is operated by accused Nos.1 and 2. They assured the de-facto complainants in these cases that, they would provide 12% interest on the deposited amount. Relying on this, the defacto complainants in these cases deposited the amount. However, they did not obtain the principal amount or the promised interest. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the above said offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in custody for about 37 days in connection with another crime with the same set of facts, and he was released on bail by this Court. It is also submitted that, as per order dated 13.01.2025 in B.A. No.307/2025, this Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in Crime No.1373/2024 of Town West Police Station, Thrissur. It is submitted that the same set of facts are alleged in these cases also.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly, the petitioner was arrested and released on bail in a connected case with the same set of facts. He was in custody for about 37 days. The petitioner was also released on bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in another crime. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think these bail applications can be allowed on stringent conditions.
8. 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.
9. 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 U.P. and Others (1994 KHC 189 : (1994) 4 SCC 260 : 1994 (1) KLT 919 : 1994 (2) KLJ 97 : AIR 1994 SC 1349 : 1994 Cri LJ 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
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; conditions for bail include cooperation with investigation and no further offences.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; custodial interrogation was not necessary, allowing bail under stringent conditions.
Bail is the rule and incarceration is the exception; the court emphasized the importance of personal liberty and the necessity of justifying arrests.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail unless compelling reasons exist to deny it.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; arrest must be justified and not routine, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty.
The court emphasized balancing personal liberty against investigational rights, allowing bail for the elderly petitioner in light of health concerns and no flight risk.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail unless compelling reasons exist to deny it.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail unless compelling reasons exist to deny it.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail unless compelling reasons exist to deny it.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail unless compelling reasons exist to deny it.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.