IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Rajan, S/o. Sreedharan - Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala & Ors. - Respondents
Bail Appl. Nos.4331, 4332, 4333, 4334 and 4336 of 2025
Decided On : 27-03-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Bail applications filed in connection with multiple crimes alleging forgery and cheating - The petitioner, accused of misusing official position to cause unlawful loss, seeks bail after prior arrest in a related case - The court considers the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, referencing Supreme Court judgments on personal liberty and the necessity of arrest - Bail granted with conditions including appearance before the Investigating Officer and cooperation with the investigation. (Paras 1 - 10 )
(B) Bail - The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception is reaffirmed, emphasizing the need for justification in arresting an accused. (Paras 8 - 9 )
(C) Conditions of bail - The court imposes specific conditions for the petitioner to follow, including appearance for interrogation and non-inducement of witnesses. (Paras 10 - 11 )
ORDER :
These bail applications are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023. These bail applications are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these cases by a common order.
2. The petitioner in all these cases are one and the same person. He is an accused in Crime Nos.933/2024, 996/2024, 997/2024, 998/2024 and 1010/2024 of Perumbavoor Police Station, Ernakulam. The above cases are registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable inter alia under Sections 468, 471, 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused in these cases misused their official position and with an intention to cause unlawful loss to the complainants and to make wrongful gain to themselves, forged documents and availed loans in the name of the complainants and thereby cheated them. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was already arrested in connection with Crime No.838/2024 of Perumbavoor Police Station, in which also the allegation is almost same. The counsel submitted that the police custody is also over. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court, if this Court grant him bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is actively involved in these cases. He also submitted that the petitioner was the Director of the society from 1999-2019 and also the President of the society from 2012-2017.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the present petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS. But the petitioner earlier filed a petition under Section 482 of BNSS in Crime No.838/2024 of Perumbavoor Police Station and this Court was not inclined to grant bail. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested in that Crime on 04.03.2025. Now, this Court granted bail to the petitioner in that crime in BA No.4149/2025. Admittedly, the petitioner’s arrest is not recorded in these crimes. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is already over, I think, the petitioner can be released on bail under Section 482 of BNSS in these cases also.
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 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,
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; arrest must be justified and not routine, ensuring personal liberty is respected.
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; arrest must be justified and not routine, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; courts must grant bail when justified, regardless of serious allegations.
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; arrest must be justified and not routine.
The court emphasized that bail applications require careful consideration of personal liberty against the needs of police investigation and established trust in the accused to adhere to bail conditio....
The court emphasized the delicate balance between personal liberty and police investigation needs in non-bailable offences, granting bail based on the accused's age and health, while ensuring safegua....
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; conditions for bail include cooperation with investigation and no further offences.
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.