IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
G.S. Prakash, S/O Late Gopinathan Nair - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondents
Bail Appl. No. 2322 of 2025
Decided on : 25-02-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 408, 409, 420, and 34 - Bail applications for the accused in financial misappropriation cases - The court noted that the petitioner was previously released on bail in similar circumstances and that custodial interrogation was not deemed necessary - The principle of bail being the rule and jail the exception was emphasized - Conditions were imposed for bail, including regular appearance before the Investigating Officer and cooperation with the investigation. (Paras 1 , 2 , 7 , 8 , 11 )
(B) Bail - The court acknowledged the serious nature of the allegations but determined that the circumstances warranted bail under stringent conditions, consistent with established jurisprudence. (Paras 7 , 8 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused of misappropriating funds from depositors who made fixed deposits with a cooperative society, leading to criminal charges being filed for non-payment of interest and principal. (Paras 2 , 3 )
Findings of Court:
The court found that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and allowed bail with specific conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation. (Paras 7 , 11 )
Issues: The main issues included the necessity of custodial interrogation and the appropriateness of granting bail given the serious allegations. (Paras 6 , 7 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that bail should be granted as a general principle unless there is a compelling reason for denial; the petitioner,s cooperation with the investigation was crucial. (Paras 8 , 9 , 11 )
Result: Bail applications allowed with conditions.
ORDER :
These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita . These bail applications are connected and therefore I am disposing of these cases by a common order.
2. The petitioner in these bail applications is the accused in different crimes registered by Vanchiyoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The above cases are registered against the petitioner inter alia under Sections 408 , 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code .
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the defacto complainants in these cases made fixed deposits at Vanchinadu Bhavana Nirmana Sahakarana Sanghom on different occasions from the year 2008 to 2021 and they were offered interest. It is submitted that, even though the depositors received interest for a certain period, subsequently, the depositors did not receive the interest and principal amount. Hence the above cases are registered at the instance of the depositors.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, some of the accused were already released on bail by the Sessions Court under Section 482 of the BNSS in some other cases with the same set of facts. The counsel submitted that the defacto complainants in these cases admitted that they received interest for a certain period and thereafter the interest was not paid. The petitioner is a lawyer and he was the Vice President of the society. It is submitted that, because of the financial difficulty, the society was not able to disburse the amount in bulk. It is also submitted that the society is taking steps to disburse the amount to the depositors. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the cases were registered after an enquiry was conducted by the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies under Section 65 of the Co-operative Societies Act. Serious irregularities are found by the Joint Registrar. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is going on. Therefore, this Court may not grant bail to the petitioner under Section 482 of the BNSS .
7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegations against the petitioner is serious. But the fact remains that some of the accused, who are involved in the connected crimes with the same set of facts, were released on bail by the Sessions Court. Moreover, the main offences alleged against the petitioner are misappropriation of fund, cheating, forgery etc. The prosecution can prove the same through oral and documentary evidences. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary. Therefore, these bail applications can be allowed on stringent conditions. There can be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10 A.M., till the final report is filed.
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
Chidambaram. P v. Directorate of Enforcement
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; custodial interrogation was not necessary, allowing bail under stringent conditions.
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; justification for arrest must be established, especially in financial misconduct cases.
Bail is the rule and custodial interrogation must be justified; mere allegations do not necessitate arrest.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; personal liberty must be prioritized unless custodial interrogation is justified.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; personal liberty must be prioritized unless justified by serious circumstances.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail when justified, ensuring fair trial rights.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail unless compelling reasons exist to deny it.
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; arrest must be justified and not routine, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty.
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.