Kerala High Court
V.S. Krishnaprasad vs State Of Kerala on 20 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BA No.2056 of 2025
1
2025:KER:14694
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2056 OF 2025
CRIME NO.105/2015 OF CUMBUMMETTU POLICE STATION, IDUKKI
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.8:
V.S. KRISHNAPRASAD
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. SREEKANDAN, VARIKKAL HOUSE,
PALAPPARAMBU BHAGAM, VADAPURAM P.O., NILAMBUR,
MAMBADU VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 676 542
BY ADVS.
MATHEW KURIAKOSE
T.G.SUNIL (PERUMBAVOOR)
J.KRISHNAKUMAR (ADOOR)
C.N.PRAKASH
MONI GEORGE
SHAJI P.K.
ARUN.S.
PREETHU JAGATHY
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031
2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
DISTRICT C BRANCH, PAINAVU, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
PIN - 685 603
BY ADV. SRI. G. SUDHEER, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BA No.2056 of 2025
2
2025:KER:14694
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
BA No.2056 of 2025
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
2. The petitioner is the 8th accused in Crime
No.195/2015 of Cumbummettu Police Station, Idukki.
The above case is registered against the petitioner
and others alleging offences punishable under
Sections 406, 409, 465, 466, 468, 471, 474, 477(A)
and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
3. The petitioner retired as Senior Division
Clerk from Taluk Office, Vellarikundu, Kasargod on
31.10.2022. He entered into service in the Revenue
BA No.2056 of 2025
3
2025:KER:14694
Department on 08.02.1991 at Idukki District and
served as L.D. Clerk in Udumbanchola Taluk Office,
Rajakumari L.A. Office and various Village Offices
under Udumbanchola Taluk during the period from
08.02.1991 till 2012. The prosecution case is that
the petitioner and other accused forged fake pattas
of properties of which they do not possess title and
thus committed the offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that even if the entire allegations are accepted, no
offence is made out against the petitioner. The
counsel also submitted that the petitioner was not
aware of the case and when he received notice he
came to know about the registration of the case. The
counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready to
BA No.2056 of 2025
4
2025:KER:14694
abide any conditions imposed by this Court, if this
Court grants him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed
the bail application.
6. Admittedly the above case is registered in
the year 2015. So far the petitioner is not arrested.
That itself shows that the custodial interrogation of
the petitioner is not necessary. The offences alleged
against the petitioner are forgery and conspiracy. The
prosecution can prove the same through oral
evidence. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner
may not be necessary. There can be a direction to
the petitioner to co-operate with the investigation.
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,
BA No.2056 of 2025
5
2025:KER:14694
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
BA No.2056 of 2025
62025:KER:14694
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
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
decisions and considering the facts and
circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is
allowed with the following conditions:
BA No.2056 of 2025
7
2025:KER:14694
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
inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the
case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
BA No.2056 of 2025
8
2025:KER:14694
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 bail as laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of
Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].
BA No.2056 of 2025
9
2025:KER:14694
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 this bail is
granted by this Court. The prosecution is
at liberty to approach the jurisdictional
Court to cancel the bail, if any of the
above conditions are violated.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
nvj JUDGE
[ad_1]
Source link