Kerala High Court
Jilson P.T 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. 2633 OF 2024
CRIME NO.200/2024 OF Chengamanad Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
JILSON P.T, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O P.T. THOMAS,
SENIOR CLERK, AYROOR SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD
NO.2237, PANIKULANGARA HOUSE, ATTUPURAM, AYROOR
P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683579
BY ADVS.
M.PAUL VARGHESE
M.M.MONAYE
K.V.SANOSH
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF
POLICE, CHENGAMANAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
RURAL DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
* 2 AYOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 2237
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM,
KERALA 680101 ,EUGIN CLEETUS S/O CLEETUS AGED 40
YEARS VAZHAVILATHOTTAM HOUSE PADAPPAKARA KARA,
PERAYAM VILLAGE KOLLAM DISTRICT
* [ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.04.2024
IN CRL.M.A.NOS.1 & 2 OF 2024]
BY ADVS.
SABIR
M.K.SHAJI
PP SMT SEENA C
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.2633 of 2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
B.A.No.2633 of 2024
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of of April, 2024
O R D E R
Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.200/2024 of Chengamanad Police Station. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 409 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case is that when the accused was in charge of the Secretary of the Ayiroor Service Co-operative Bank from 01.09.2021 to 22.08.2022 an amount of Rs.1,09,121/- took and remitted to Parur Taluk Employees Co-operative Society and used the digital signature after the tenure of his charge as Secretary.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner B.A. No.2633 of 2024 3 submits that the above case is a false case foisted against the petitioner. It is submitted that the same allegations were raised in the disciplinary proceedings and this Court, as per Annexure A1 judgment dated 14.12.2023 in WP(C) No.38056 of 2023, quashed the same. It is also submitted that the suspension order of the defacto complainant against the petitioner was also quashed by this Court as per Annexure A2 judgment dated 15.025.2024 in WP(C) No.21513 of 2023. It is further submitted that another charge issued by the defacto complainant on the petitioner was stayed by this Court as evident by Annexure A3 order dated 26.02.2024 in WP(C) No.7338 of 2024. According to the petitioner, knowing that he initiated a contempt proceeding in pursuant to Annexure A1 judgment, for not reinstating him, the present case is filed.
B.A. No.2633 of 2024 4
5. After hearing both the sides, I am of the considered opinion that this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. It is a fact that the petitioner approached this Court on earlier occasion with writ petitions and this Court interfered with the disciplinary proceedings and suspension order. But whether the allegation in the present criminal case is same in the disciplinary proceedings is to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. Anyway, the prosecution has to prove the case through documentary evidence. I am of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.
6. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that, the bail is the rule and the jail is the B.A. No.2633 of 2024 5 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:
i. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;
ii. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for B.A. No.2633 of 2024 6 a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;
iii. 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;
iv. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court;
v. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is an accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected;
vi. If any of the above conditions are B.A. No.2633 of 2024 7 violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.
vii. 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 sp/19/04/2024