IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 7TH MAGHA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 623 OF 2025 CRIME NO.29/2022 OF CBCID, THRISSUR, Thrissur PETITIONER/S:

1 KHADER HUSSAIN AGED 78 YEARS PAROTHUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KATTUNGACHIRA, THRISSUR,, PIN - 680125

2 CHANDRIKA AGED 73 YEARS WIFE OF GOPALAKRISHNAN, CHERALA HOUSE, MADAYIKONAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680712

3 ANITHA P B AGED 50 YEARS WIFE OF VIDYASAGAR, KUTTASSERY HOUSE, KARUVANNUR P O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680711 BY ADVS.

JITHIN BABU A ARUN SAMUEL ANOOD JALAL K.J.

RESPONDENT/S:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 SRI HRITHWIK CS, SR PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

27.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

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

B.A.No.623 of 2025 ----------------------------------------------

Dated this the 27^th day of January, 2025

ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. Petitioners are accused Nos.13, 8 and 7 respectively in Crime No.29/2022 of CBCID, Thrissur. The above case is registered against the petitioners and others alleging offences interalia under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that accused Nos. 1 and 2 who are the office bearers of the Karuvanoor Service Co-operative Bank created forged documents and availed loan on the basis of the said forged documents in the name of the defacto complainant and her children and thereafter committed criminal breach of trust. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

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

5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners are not involved in these cases. They are falsely implicated in this case. Several cases are registered against the petitioners. This Court granted Anticipatory bail in all those cases as evident by Annexure-2. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

6. This Court considered the contention of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. After hearing both sides and also considering Annexure-2 order, I think bail can be granted after imposing stringent conditions.

7. 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.

8. 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.”

9. In Manish S