Kerala High Court
Thillai Selvan Mani 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. 3057 OF 2024
CRIME NO.387/2024 OF Ernakulam South Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONERS/3RD 4TH ACCUSED:
1 THILLAI SELVAN MANI
AGED 29 YEARS
RESIDING AT 17/5 I,MAHAKAVI BHARATHIYAR
SALAI,MATHAVAPURAM,KANYAKUMARI,AGASTEEWARAM P.O
KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT TAMIL NADU, PIN - 629702
2 NANTHU MATHAV. M
AGED 22 YEARS
RESIDING AT 5/3,SAIVA MUTHAIYA,3RD
STREET,ROYAPETTAH,CHENNAI,TAMIL NADU, PIN - 600014
BY ADVS.
B.DIPU SACH DEEV
ARUN BABU
ANEESHRAJ R.
RESPONDENT/PROSECUTION/INVESTIGATION:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
ADV. SEENA C - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BA NO. 3057 OF 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------
B.A.No. 3057 of 2024
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.387 of 2024 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 10 read with Section 24 of the Emigration Act. The petitioner was arrested on 10.03.2024.
3. The crux of the prosecution case, is that; the 1st accused is the owner and the 2nd accused is the Manager of an institution named 'Kattoorans Institute of Technology', which has no authorisation to recruit candidates for overseas employment. However, by suppressing these facts, the accused published an advertisement on the social media and received Rs.1,65,000/- from two ladies assuring them BA NO. 3057 OF 2024 3 job as registered nurse at Italy. However, the accused did not arrange the job or return the money to the victims. The allegation of the de facto complainant is that, he had lost Rs.2000/- due to the overt act of the accused. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1st and 2nd accused are already released on bail as per order dated 09.04.2024 in B.A No.2777 of 2024 and 04.04.2024 in B.A No.2741 of 2024. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any condition if this Court grant them bail. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the 1st and 2nd accused were already released on bail, I think the bail application can be allowed.
7. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble BA NO. 3057 OF 2024 4 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. 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. Petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
2. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the BA NO. 3057 OF 2024 5 facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
3. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
4. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays till final report is filed.
6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
AP JUDGE