IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 24TH POUSHA, 1946 BAIL APPL.NO. 11137 OF 2024 CRIME NO.1150/2023 OF SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONER / 3RD ACCUSE D :

MUHAMMED JUNAIS, AGED 33 YEARS S/O ASSAINAR, PACHEERI HOUSE, KOOTTOPADAM, MANNARKAD PALAKKAD, PIN - 678583 BY ADVS.

K.I.ABDUL RASHEED DEEPA SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION KOLLAM-691581, PIN - 682031 ADV.SRI.NOUSHAD K.A.-SR.PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

14.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

--------------------------------

B.A.No.11137 of 2024 ----------------------------------------------

Dated this the 14^th day of January, 2025

ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section

482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. Petitioner is the 3^rd accused in Crime No.1150/2023 of Sakthikulangara Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Sections

420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case is that the 1^st accused introduced the 2^nd accused, who is conducting an office by name “Fly High Global Immigration Pvt.Ltd.” and offered Visa to Israle. It is alleged that huge amounts was collected from the defacto complainant and hence it is alleged that the accused had committed the alleged offence.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amount is collected by the 1^st and 2^nd accused. Petitioner is only a Manager of a Hotel where the 2^nd accused was stayed. The counsel submitted that the petitioner has no relationship with 1^st and 2^nd accused.

6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the Bail Application.

7. This Court has considered the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

8. The 2^nd accused in this case is already arrested and released on bail. The main allegation is against the 1^st accused.

9. 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.

10. 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, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.”

11. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2023 KHC 6961], the Apex Court observed that even if the all