IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 14TH VAISAKHA, 1944
BAIL APPL. NO. 2955 OF 2022
CRIME NO.VC.01/19/SCE/2019 OF VACB, ERNAKULAM, Ernakulam
PETITIONER:
V HAMSA
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O KUNJIPPU,
VELLIAPPANTHODI HOUSE,
KARUMANAM KURUSSI P.O,
VELLINEZHI,
PALAKKAD
, PIN - 679504
BY ADVS.
S.RAJEEV
V.VINAY
M.S.ANEER
SARATH K.P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM
(CRIME NO VC.01/19/SCE OF 2019 OF
VACB SPECIAL CELL, ERNAKULAM)
, PIN - 682031
2 VACB SPECIAL CELL
ERNAKULAM
(CRIME NO. VC.01/19/SCE OF 2019 OF
VACB SPECIAL CELL, ERNAKULAM)
, PIN - 682017
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.05.2022, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.2955 of 2022
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.2955 of 2022
-------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of May, 2022
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.VC No.01/19/SCE registered by VACB Special Cell, Ernakulam, alleging offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act.
3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner who was working as Government servant during the period from 01.01.2009 to 30.09.2018 was found in possession of pecuniary resource and properties, disproportionate to the known source of income. The allegation is that there is 63.42% excess income, calculated by the Investigating Officer. Annexure 1 is the FIR.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. B.A.No.2955 of 2022 3 The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is not correct. The Counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation. The Public Prosecutor would submitted that, the petitioner is not co-operating with the investigation and if this Court is granting bail, there may a direction to the petitioner to co-operate with the investigation. In the light of the above submission, I think the bail application can be allowed on condition that petitioner should co-operate with the investigation and surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days.
5. 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.
6. Recently the Apex Court in Siddharth v State of Uttar B.A.No.2955 of 2022 4 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: 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."
7. 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 petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation.
B.A.No.2955 of 2022 5
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 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 accused, or B.A.No.2955 of 2022 6 suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
6. 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.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE Nsd B.A.No.2955 of 2022 7 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2955/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure I A COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. VC.01/19/SCE OF VACB SPECIAL CELL, ERNAKULAM Annexure II A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 03.10.2018 Annexure III A COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE CERTIFICATE RECEIVED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT Annexure IV A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 23.09.2019