Kerala High Court
Althaf K vs State Of Kerala on 12 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:12216
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025/23RD MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 5691 OF 2024
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:
ALTHAF K
AGED 43 YEARS, S/O KAMARUDHEEN S, T C 43/141(1)
CHETTIAR THERUVU KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD
VILLAGE,
AND NOW RESIDING AT NIHAL COTTAGE, SHALIMAR
GARDEN, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, PRAVACHAMBALAM,
NEMOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 020.
BY ADVS.
R.SANTHOSH (VARKALA)
C.R.VIJAYAKUMARAN PILLAI
MUKESH KUMAR G.
YAYATHI VIJAYAN
ADWAITH SUSEEL
RESPONDENT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MUSEUM POLICE STATION, MUSERUM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN-682 301, PIN - 695033
2025:KER:12216
B.A No.5691 of 2024
2
BY ADV
HRITHWIK C.S., SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:12216
B.A No.5691 of 2024
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.5691 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime No.1505 of 2023 of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 420 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
3. The prosecution case is that the accused with a malafide intention to earn illegal enrichment and to cause loss to the company of the defacto complainant, published an advertisement for the sale of Maruthi Ecco model vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-19M-6005 in 2025:KER:12216 B.A No.5691 of 2024 4 the R.C ownership of Saran in the OLX with the mobile phone numbers 9474796495, 6238880793 of the accused and he collected Rs.3,50,000/-, when the Defacto complainant contacted in the aforesaid numbers and the accused required to transfer Rs.3,00,000/- in the A/c No. 13170100182480 on 09.09.2023 of the Federal Bank Aamballoor branch and Rs. 50,000/- in the A/c No. 10270100231213 of the Federal Bank, Parassala branch on 13.09.2023 and also cheated him by giving forged RC book without the hypothecation of Cholamandalam Finance and documents as original and thereby committed the aforesaid offence.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the 4th accused and he has no involvement in this case. The vehicle transaction was between the 1st accused and defacto complainant. The 2025:KER:12216 B.A No.5691 of 2024 5 counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any condition, if this Court grants him bail.
6. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner may be directed to co-operate with the investigation.
7. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The petitioner is only the 4th accused. The main allegation is against the other accused. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think bail can be granted to the petitioner after imposing stringent conditons.
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 2025:KER:12216 B.A No.5691 of 2024 6 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 2025:KER:12216 B.A No.5691 of 2024 7 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."
10. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2023 KHC 6961], the Apex Court observed that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case.
Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the 2025:KER:12216 B.A No.5691 of 2024 8 following directions:
1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation.
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned.
3. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any 2025:KER:12216 B.A No.5691 of 2024 9 inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
4. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
6. Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the investigating officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on 2025:KER:12216 B.A No.5691 of 2024 10 bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v.
State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].
7. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court to cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE AMR