[ad_1]
Kerala High Court
Vishnuraj.C.R vs State Of Kerala on 17 July, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
B.A.No.8315 of 2025 1
2025:KER:53452
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 8315 OF 2025
CRIME NO.376/2025 OF Vadakkancherry Police Station, Palakkad
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.05.2025 IN CRMC NO.2227 OF 2025 OF
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT / RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY , PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:
VISHNURAJ C.R., AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.C.K.RAJAN, CHERATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
ANJUMOORTHYMANGALAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678682
BY ADV SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
SRI. NOUSHAD K. A. (PP)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.8315 of 2025 2
2025:KER:53452
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A.No.8315 of 2025
...................................................
Dated this the 17th 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 sole accused in Crime No.376 of 2025
of Vadakkencherry Police Station, Palakkad, registered for the
offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.
3. According to the prosecution, the accused had
promised to arrange employment in Poland to the de facto
complainant and three other persons and obtained a large amount
of money during the period from 08.08.2019 till date and
thereafter failed to provide the employment or visa or return the
amount and thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. Heard Adv.V.A.Johnson, the learned Counsel for the
petitioner as well as Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public
Prosecutor.
B.A.No.8315 of 2025 3
2025:KER:53452
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
no offence of any nature is attracted against the petitioner since
he had made all arrangements for obtaining the visa and the de
facto complainant and other persons could not succeed in the
interview. It was also pointed out that Annexure A2 appointment
letter was issued from the Embassy of Poland at Chennai and,
therefore, petitioner cannot be blamed for the failure to obtain the
visa. It was further submitted that after specific steps were taken,
the de facto complainant and others backed out on their request
for an employment in Poland due to the Russia-Ukraine war and
hence petitioner cannot be blamed for the inability to obtain a
visa.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application and submitted that the allegations against the
petitioners are serious and there are three other crimes against
the petitioner and hence he ought not to be granted anticipatory
bail.
7. Petitioner had collected a large amount of money from
the de facto complainant and three other persons, promising to
B.A.No.8315 of 2025 4
2025:KER:53452
arrange visa to Poland. Annexure 3 reveals that an interview was
arranged for the de facto complainant by the Embassy of Poland.
Since the de facto complainant failed to clear the interview,
petitioner cannot prima facie be made liable for a criminal action.
Further, the contention that the war between Russia and Ukraine
also interfered and the de facto complainant and others had
backed out of their request for visa and employment in Poland
cannot be brushed aside.
8. 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.
9. In Ashok Kumar v. State of Union Territory of
Chandigarh, [2024 SCC OnLine SC 274], it has been held that a
B.A.No.8315 of 2025 5
2025:KER:53452
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 interrogation of the
accused is required for the purpose of investigation.
10. In the instant case, the prosecution has not been able
to convince this Court of the necessity of custodial interrogation.
On a consideration of the circumstances arising in the case, this
Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is
not required. However, petitioner must appear for interrogation for
the purpose of completing the investigation.
Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following
conditions:
(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer
on 29.07.2025 and shall subject himself to interrogation.
(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer
proposes to arrest the petitioner, then, he shall be
released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties
each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer.
B.A.No.8315 of 2025 6
2025:KER:53452
(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 he tamper with the evidence.
(e) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while
he is on bail.
(f) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission
of the Court having jurisdiction.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any
modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the
jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such
applications, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this
Court.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
sp/17/07/2025
B.A.No.8315 of 2025 7
2025:KER:53452
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 8315/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R.NO.376/2025 OF
VADAKKENCHERRY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
DATED 27.03.2025
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER DATED
23.05.2023
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
23.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY RESHMA
Annexure.4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MC.
NO.2227/2025 OF THE COURT OF SESSION,
PALAKKAD DIVISION DATED 31.05.2025
[ad_2]
Source link