Kerala High Court
Preethi Mathew vs Station House Officer on 4 July, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2025:KER:49330
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 7563 OF 2025
CRIME NO.433/2025 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONER(S)/FIR 433/2025:
PREETHI MATHEW
AGED 51 YEARS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, CAN ASSURE CONSULTANCY, NEAR
MANORAMA, KOTTAYAM, KERALA., PIN - 686001
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.SANJAY
SHRI.SANIL KUMAR G.
SHRI.ROHIT S.
RESPONDENT(S)/FIR 433/2025:
1 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANCHAL POLICE STATION,
KOLLAM RURAL KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN - 691306
2 DEEPA V S
SIVARENJINI HOUSE, ANCHAL P O , AGASTHYAKODUKARA,
ANCHAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN -
691306
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
SRI. PRASANTH M.P., PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A. NO. 7563 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:49330
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
...............................................
B.A.No.7563 of 2025
...............................................
Dated this the 04th day of July, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.433/2025 of Anchal Police Station, Kollam, registered alleging offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC).
3. According to the prosecution, the accused is conducting an establishment named Can Assure Consultancy, had collected a total amount of Rs.6,40,000/-, promising student visa and a partime job for the defacto complainant in the United States of America, and thereafter failed to provide either the visa or the employment, and thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Petitioner is an accused in several crimes and was arrested on 26.02.2025 in connection with Crime No.1673/2024 of Kottayam West Police Station. She was in custody for 101 days and was finally released on bail on 07.06.2025.
B.A. NO. 7563 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:49330
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that on 04.04.2025, while the petitioner was undergoing custody in Crime No.1673/2024 and other cases, a zero FIR was registered by the Kottayam West Police Station and without recording her arrest, the FIR was transferred to Anchal Police Station, where it was re-registered as Crime No.433/2025 on 07.04.2025. Despite the registration of the said FIR, the police did not take any steps to record the arrest of the petitioner until 07.06.2025, after she was released on bail. It was also pointed out that after her release on bail, steps were taken to arrest her again by obtaining a production warrant. However, by the time the production warrant reached the jail, petitioner had already been released. She now apprehends that she will be arrested immediately on similar allegations as those in Crime No. 1673/2024. According to the learned counsel, there is a concerted attempt on the part of the police to ensure that petitioner remains in custody for a long time.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required as the allegations are serious and the petitioner is involved in numerous crimes.
8. It is evident, on a perusal of the FIR in Crime No. 433/2025, that the information was received at the Kottayam West Police Station on 07.04.2025. At that point of time, petitioner was already in custody in connection with Crime No. 1673/2024, registered B.A. NO. 7563 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:49330 with the same police station. Despite such information having been received, and without recording her arrest, the FIR was transferred to Anchal Police Station, and for the next two months, petitioner's arrest was never recorded. I am satisfied that the attempt of the respondents is to continue the custody of the petitioner by taking her into custody and prolonging it for an extended period. In such circumstances, the petitioner ought to be protected with an order of pre-arrest bail.
9. In Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, [2020 (5) SCC 1], it was held that while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of each case, and subject to the discretion of the court.
10. In Ashok Kumar v. State of Union Territory Chandigarh [2024 SCC OnLine SC 274] , it has been held that a mere assertion on the part of the State while opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial interrogation is required would not be sufficient and that the State would have to show or indicate more than prima facie case as to why custodial investigation of the accused is required for the purpose of investigation. B.A. NO. 7563 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:49330
11. In the instant case, the prosecution has not been able to convince this Court that custodial interrogation is necessary. On a consideration of the circumstances arising in the case, this Court is of the view that though the allegations are serious in nature, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and petitioner is entitled to be released on pre-arrest bail subject to conditions.
12. Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:
(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 14.07.2025, from 10.00 am to 01.00pm, and shall subject herself to interrogation.
(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, then, she shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer.
(c) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall also co-operate with the investigation.
(d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall she tamper with the evidence.
(e) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while she is on bail.
(f) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.
B.A. NO. 7563 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:49330 In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE mea B.A. NO. 7563 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:49330 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 7563/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 433/2025 DATED 07/04/2025