Kerala High Court
Mohan B 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. 3154 OF 2024
CRIME NO.409/2024 OF Harbour Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MOHAN B
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. C.K. BALAN, B2 GALAXY LUXOR,
ST. SEBASTIAN ROAD, KADAVANTHARA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682020
BY ADVS.
K.S.SREERAJ
J.RAMKUMAR
GAYATHRI A.L.
SREEPARVATHY M.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY SRI.M.P.PRASANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.3154 of 2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
B.A.No.3154 of 2024
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of of April, 2024
O R D E R
Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.409/2024 of Harbour Police Station, Ernakulam. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner is an employee of the Indian Navy. He offered an employment for the husband of the defacto complainant in the Indian Navy and accordingly, huge amount is collected from the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner failed to keep his promise and not returned the amount and thus committed the aforesaid offences.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the B.A. No.3154 of 2024 3 petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel appearing for the victim.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is going to retire in April, 2024. It is submitted that the defacto complainant is working as a Telephone Supervisor at the Telephone Exchange, Naval Base. It is also submitted that the allegations against the petitioner is false and that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grants him anticipatory bail. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application.
5. After hearing both the sides, I am of the considered opinion that this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The petitioner is working in Navy and he is going to retire in April, 2024. According to the petitioner, the B.A. No.3154 of 2024 4 defacto complainant is working as a Telephone Supervisor at the Telephone Exchange, Naval Base. It is surprising to see that an employee, who is working in a public undertaking, is giving huge amount for getting job in Navy to her husband. I do not want to make any further observation about the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. 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 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 B.A. No.3154 of 2024 5 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 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; B.A. No.3154 of 2024 6
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. The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays at 10 a.m till final report is filed.
vi. 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;B.A. No.3154 of 2024 7
vii. 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.
viii. 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