Kerala High Court
O P Sulaiman vs State Of Kerala on 6 March, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:19008
BAIL APPL. NO. 2832 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2832 OF 2025
CRIME NO.109/2025 OF Vadakara Police Station, Kozhikode
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 O P SULAIMAN
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O KUNHAMMAD, KADHEEJA MANZIL KOTTAPPALLY,
CHEMMARUTHUR-PO, VATAKARA KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.,
PIN - 673104
2 O P MOOSA
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O KUNHAMMAD, OTTAPILAKAL HOUSE KOTTAPPALLY,
CHEMMARUTHUR-PO, VATAKARA KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.,
PIN - 673104
3 SUBAIDA
AGED 57 YEARS
W/O IBRAHIM ALANKOTTUMMAL, VILLYAPPALLI-PO,
VATAKARA KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673542
BY ADVS.
P.VENUGOPAL
SRILAKSHMI T.S.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2025:KER:19008
BAIL APPL. NO. 2832 OF 2025
2
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VATAKARA POLICE STATION, VATAKARA
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673101
3 O P BIYYATHU
AGED 65 YEARS
D/O KUNHAMMAD MANATT KOVUMMAL HOUSE,
THURAYUR PAYYOLI ANGADI-PO, VATAKARA
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673523
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP-SEETHA S
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:19008
BAIL APPL. NO. 2832 OF 2025
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A.No.2832 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 06th day of March, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.109/2025 of Vatakara Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 463, 465, 466, 471 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that, the father of the petitioners and the 3rd respondent executed a settlement deed vide Document No.878/2007 of SRO Thiruvallur on 04-07-2007 in favour of his wife, and children, i.e., two sons (petitioners 1 & 2) and four daughters including the 3rd petitioner and the 3rd respondent. It is alleged that the above settlement deed is 2025:KER:19008 BAIL APPL. NO. 2832 OF 2025 4 forged by the accused as far as the distribution of property in the schedule of the document is concerned.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the disputed document is executed in the year 2007. The allegation of forgery is not correct. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. Admittedly the disputed document was executed in the year 2007. Now the defacto complainant claims that there is forgery. To prove the same, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary. The prosecution can prove the case through oral and documentary evidence.
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 2025:KER:19008 BAIL APPL. NO. 2832 OF 2025 5 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:
2025:KER:19008 BAIL APPL. NO. 2832 OF 2025 6 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 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.
10. 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 following directions:
1. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks 2025:KER:19008 BAIL APPL. NO. 2832 OF 2025 7 from today and shall undergo interrogation.
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned.
3. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any 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.
2025:KER:19008 BAIL APPL. NO. 2832 OF 2025 8
4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are 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 petitioners even while the petitioners are on 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 petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this 2025:KER:19008 BAIL APPL. NO. 2832 OF 2025 9 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
JV JUDGE