Kerala High Court
Jayaram K.G vs State Of Kerala on 16 April, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 27TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2144 OF 2024
CRIME NO.210/2024 OF Narakkal Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:
JAYARAM K.G.,
AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O GANGADHARAN, KALLARAKKAL KURIES & LOANS,PALLIPORT
P.O., MUNAMBAM, KOCHI, PIN - 683515
BY ADV BABU CHERUKARA
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER ,
NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION,NJARAKKAL P.O., PIN - 682505
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PRASHANTH M.P
PP; PRASANTH M P
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 2144 OF 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.2144 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) .
2. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.210/2024 of Njarakkal Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 9 lakhs in the establishment Kallarakal Kuries and an amount of Rs.3 lakhs was due as per a gold plan scheme of the said establishment. It is mentioned by the defacto complainant that the first accused and the second accused are the persons to whom the establishment belonged and the said amount are not paid back by the accused persons and even after the maturity period of both chit and gold plan scheme. Hence, the case is registered.
BAIL APPL. NO. 2144 OF 2024 3
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant was issued with a cheque for the amount due but the same was dishonoured. Consequently, two complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is filed against the petitioner, which is pending as S.T.Nos.708 and 1056 of 2023. The present complaint is filed with the same set of facts. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
6. Admittedly, two complaints are filed against 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for the dishonour of cheque. For the same set of fact, the present case is registered alleging offence punishable under Section 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC. I think the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. There can be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate 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, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same BAIL APPL. NO. 2144 OF 2024 4 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. 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. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes 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 officer concerned;
3. 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 her 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. If any of the above conditions are violated by the BAIL APPL. NO. 2144 OF 2024 5 petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.
7. 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).
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE msp BAIL APPL. NO. 2144 OF 2024 6 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2144/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DAILY STATUS OF ST. NO.708 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NJARACKAL OBTAINED FROM E-COURTS WEBSITE.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE DAILY STATUS OF ST. NO.1056 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NJARACKAL OBTAINED FROM E-COURTS WEBSITE.