Kerala High Court
Sanjayajith vs State Of Kerala on 4 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 15TH MAGHA,1942
Bail Appl..No.781 OF 2021
CRIME NO.1481/2019 OF Thodupuzha Police Station, Idukki
PETITIONER:
SANJAYAJITH
AGED 23 YEARS
KOONAMANGAL HOUSE MANIYAR P.O. PADAYANIPARA
PATHANAMTHITTA.
PIN-689662
BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM
PIN-682031
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU.S.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.781 of 2021 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.781 of 2021
-------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2021
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal
Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
2. Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.1481 of 2019
of Thodupuzha Police Station. The above case is registered
against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable
under Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 IPC.
3.The prosecution case is that the accused person with an
intention to cheat the de facto complainant offered that they
would make arrangement for M.B.B.S admission for her
daughter at Al-Azar Medical College, Thodupuzha and received
an amount of Rs.57,50,000/- on different dates and returned
only Rs.15,00,000/-. Hence it is alleged that the petitioner
and the other accused committed the offence.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the
entire allegations are accepted in toto, the offence under Sections
406 and 420 IPC is not made out. The counsel also submitted that
as per Annexure-AIII order, this Court directed the petitioner to
appear before the Investigating Officer for questioning and the
petitioner already complied the same. The custodial interrogation of
the petitioner may not be necessary.
6.The Public Prosecutor conceded that the other accused were
already released on bail by this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The
Public Prosecutor submitted that as per common order dated
20.1.2021 in B.A.No.6023 of 2020, 6041 of 2020 and 7064 of 2020
some of the accused were released on bail. But the Public
Prosecutor submitted that the bail application of one of the accused
was dismissed. The Public Prosecutor also submitted that, the
petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer as directed by
this Court.
7.After hearing both sides and considering the fact that
the other accused are already released on bail, there is no
justification in denying bail to the petitioner under Section 438
Cr.P.C. I also considered the fact that the petitioner already
surrendered before the Investigating Officer for questioning as
per the direction of this Court.
8. Moreover, considering the need to follow social
distancing norms inside prisons so as to avert the spread of the
novel Corona Virus Pandemic, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo
Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020) and a Full Bench of
this Court in W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020 issued various salutary
directions for minimizing the number of inmates inside prisons.
9. 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.
10. 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. The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer within ten days from
today and shall undergo interrogation.
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating
Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he
shall be released on bail 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. The 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.
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. The petitioner shall strictly abide by the
various guidelines issued by the State
Government and Central Government with
respect to keeping of social distancing in the
wake of Covid 19 pandemic.
7. 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.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE
cms
