IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 25TH MAGHA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 1714 OF 2025 CRIME NO.1092/2024 OF Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam PETITIONER/S:

1 K.A. SHAMSUDHEEN AGED 68 YEARS S/O ABOO C.M, PRINCETON SKYLINE IVY LEAGUE APPARTMENTS, 8F, NEAR INFO PARK, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030

2 ASIF SHA AGED 29 YEARS S/O K.A. SHAMSUDHEEN, PRINCETON SKYLINE IVY LEAGUE APPARTMENTS, 8F, NEAR INFO PARK, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030

3 ABIN SHA AGED 34 YEARS S/O K.A. SHAMSUDHEEN, PRINCETON SKYLINE IVY LEAGUE APPARTMENTS, 8F, NEAR INFO PARK, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030 BY ADVS.

SR.ADV.SRI.MOHAMMED YOUSEFF TM, FOR PETITIONER AYSHA YOUSEFF ASHIFA YOUSEFF AKHEELA FARZANA RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM CITY, PIN -

682033 SRI.G.SUDHEER PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

14.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J –-------------------------------------

B.A. No. 1714 of 2025 --------------------------------------

Dated this the 14^th day of February, 2025

O R D E R

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

2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.

1092/2024 of Kalamassery Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Secs. 406, 420, 506, 120B r/w 34 IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused Nos 1 to 5 misappropriated an amount of Rs.14,92,000/-.

4. Heard Sri.Mohammed Youseff T.M., Sr.counsel represented by his retaining counsel. Heard the Public Prosecutor also.

5. The Sr. Counsel submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offences alleged are not attracted. The counsel submitted that it is only a violation of an agreement and no ingredients of cheating is there in this case. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. This Court also perused the First Information report. It seems that it is a monetary dispute. Whether there is any ingredients to attract the offences alleged, is a matter to be investigated. I do not want to make any observation about the same. But, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the petitioners can be released on bail, 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 I