Kerala High Court
M.K Bhageeradhan vs State Of Kerala on 17 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:13146
BAIL APPL. NO. 7946 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 28TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 7946 OF 2024
CRIME NO.374/2024 OF Kongad Police Station, Palakkad
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMC NO.4563 OF
2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
M.K BHAGEERADHAN,
AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. SANKARA GUPTHAN,
MANDHATTIL KIZHAKKUMPURATHU HOUSE,
THRIPPALAMUNDA, PARASSERY P.O,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678631
BY ADVS.
VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN
B.ANUSREE
ABHILASH C.V.
VARUN JACOB
MYZA ALAN JOSE
SRI.P VIJAYABHANU SR.
RESPONDENT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2025:KER:13146
BAIL APPL. NO. 7946 OF 2024
2
ADDL.R2 STINIYA K.G,
AGED 43 YEARS
D/O K GOPIDAS, KAPPILL VEEDU, KAYARAMKODE,
MUNDOOR, PALAKKAD- 678592
IS IMPLEADED AS THE ADDITIONAL SECOND RESPONDENT
AS PER ORDER DATED 20.11.2024 IN CRL MA 1/2024 IN
BA 7946/2024.
BY ADVS.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI CK SURESH
S.RAJEEV
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
V.VINAY
M.S.ANEER
SARATH K.P.
PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH
ANILKUMAR C.R.
K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:13146
BAIL APPL. NO. 7946 OF 2024
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A.No.7946 of 2024
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.374/2024 of Kongadu Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 182, 417, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC).
3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner is in inimical terms with the father of the defacto complainant and due to the said animosity, the petitioner had created some letters addressed to various persons, as if those letters were signed by her and one Ajayakumar and the letters were sent to authorities as if she had some grievance against certain political leaders of Palakkad district. The letters were allegedly addressed to the Chief Minister and other authorities and were sent through registered post. It is also alleged that, the above 2025:KER:13146 BAIL APPL. NO. 7946 OF 2024 4 acts were done in order to tarnish the image of the defacto complainant, who is an advocate of Palakkad Bar and further on the belief that, she might lose her job as the official receiver. It is further alleged that, in the letter, the address of the defacto complainant as well as her enrollment number were mentioned. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences.
4. Heard Sri.P.Vijayabhanu, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri.S. Rajeev, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and also Sri.C.K.Suresh, the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The Senior Counsel submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offences alleged is only upto seven years. The Senior Counsel submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are not correct and in the connected case, the petitioner is already released on bail as per order dated 14.10.2024 in BA No.3756/2022. The counsel for the defacto complainant seriously opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner is a person who is convicted for an offence under Section 489C IPC. The counsel for the defacto 2025:KER:13146 BAIL APPL. NO. 7946 OF 2024 5 complainant takes me through the documents and submitted that it is a clear case in which there is forgery. The counsel also submitted that the defacto complainant is a lawyer practicing at Palakkad Bar and she is the official receiver. It will tarnish the image of the defacto complainant. The counsel submitted that the petitioner may not be released on bail and he will commit similar offence in future also. The Senior Public Prosecutor also seriously opposed the bail application. The Senior Public Prosecutor made available the bail objection report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kongadu.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner, defacto complainant and the Public Prosecutor. This Court also perused the bail objection report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police. On a perusal of the bail objection report, it is clear that the investigation is almost over. It is only stated in the bail objection report that the presence of the petitioner is necessary for taking photographs to compare with the pictures in the CCTV. Except the same, no other reason is mentioned in the bail objection report to deny bail. Admittedly all offences alleged against the petitioner are offences in which 2025:KER:13146 BAIL APPL. NO. 7946 OF 2024 6 the maximum punishment that can be imposed is upto seven years. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another [(2014) 8 SCC 273], the Apex Court observed like this:
"7.1. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that a person accused of offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on its satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. Police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the police officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured. These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on facts.
2025:KER:13146 BAIL APPL. NO. 7946 OF 2024 7 7.2. The law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. The law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest. 7.3. In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. In fine, before arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes envisaged by sub-clauses
(a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 CrPC." Keeping in mind the above principle, this Court considered the prosecution case once again. I think custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. There can be a direction to the petitioner to co-operate with the investigation. There can be a 2025:KER:13146 BAIL APPL. NO. 7946 OF 2024 8 direction to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks and the Investigating Officer can interrogate the petitioner for two days from 10 am to 4 pm.After interrogation, if the arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to release the petitioner 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 2025:KER:13146 BAIL APPL. NO. 7946 OF 2024 9 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 Sisodia v. Central Bureau of 2025:KER:13146 BAIL APPL. NO. 7946 OF 2024 10 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, I think bail can be granted after imposing stringent conditions.
Therefore, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:
1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation. The Investigating Officer can interrogate the petitioner for two consecutive days from 10 am to 4 pm.
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 2025:KER:13146 BAIL APPL. NO. 7946 OF 2024 11 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 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 2025:KER:13146 BAIL APPL. NO. 7946 OF 2024 12 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 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
JV JUDGE