Kerala High Court
Shinoy Ks vs State Of Kerala on 19 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
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 30TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3160 OF 2024
CRIME NO.429/2024 OF ERNAKULAM SOUTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC NO.1065 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT
COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/1st ACCUSED:
SHINOY KS,
AGED 39 YEARS,
KANIYATH HOUSE, KAITHARAM P.O, NORTH PARAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683519
BY ADV V.VISAL AJAYAN
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
PP.SRI.PRASANTH.M.P
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 3160 OF 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3160 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) .
2. The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.429/2024 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner is running a travel agency named Sirra International and the petitioner with a dishonest intention assured to the defacto complainant that company would facilitate air tickets to London for charge of Rs.63000/- for 06.04.2024 and return ticket. Thereafter, the petitioner received an amount of Rs.69,732/-. It is stated that the tickets are booked on 02.04.2024, without the consent and knowledge of the defacto complainant. Hence, it is alleged that the petitioner committed the offences.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3160 OF 2024 3
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
5. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor and also going through Annexure A1 FIR, I think the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation. With the above condition and other usual conditions, this bail application can be allowed.
6. 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.
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. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating BAIL APPL. NO. 3160 OF 2024 4 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 3160 OF 2024 5 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