Kerala High Court
Sasi Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 9 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 8152 OF 2021
CRIME NO.166 OF 2021 OF SREEKARYAM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 2398/2021 OF SESSIONS COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:
SASI BALAKRISHNAN,
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT SREEVILAS,
SANTHI NAGAR, SRA- 439, SREEKARYAM, TRIVANDRUM,
PIN- 695 017.
BY ADVS.
P.A.AUGUSTIAN
C.R.SURESH KUMAR
RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682 031.
SREEJA.V- SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 8152 OF 2021
2
ORDER
Application for regular bail.
2. The petitioner who is the 4th accused in Crime
No.166/2021 of Sreekaryam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406,
420, 468, 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has preferred this
application for his release on bail.
3. The petitioner has been in custody since 11 .09.2021.
4. The prosecution allegation is that this petitioner/the 4 th
accused is conducting an institution by name Salisa Educational
Solution and Research Centre. This accused approached the defacto
complainant with the fraudulent intention and induced her to part
with a sum of Rs.5,30,000/- for arranging a job as promised by the
accused. The amount has been deposited by the defacto
complainant in the account of this petitioner, who is running the
institution. Though the amount was received by them on various
dates starting from 14.12.2020, they could not arrange the job as
promised and thus misappropriated the amount. They have also
made a false representation that this Salisa Educational Solution
and Research Centre is a Central Government Institution and the
BAIL APPL. NO. 8152 OF 2021
promise was to arrange employment in that institution. Thus this
petitioner along with the other accused have cheated the defacto
complainant and committed the aforesaid offences.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that,
in fact the defacto complainant as well her husband were given
employment in the institution run by him. The defacto complainant
was in fact appointed as Accounts Officer with a monthly salary of
Rs.15,000/- as per the appointment order received by her dated
13.01.2020. So also her husband was appointed as the
Superintendent of the Salisa Educational Solution and Research
Centre on the very same day. So both of them were given
employment in the institution and as per Annexure-B they have
been paid salary also. So they were appointed as employees in the
institution. But because of the pandemic situation their salary could
not be paid regularly and that alone have prompted them to
register this case against this petitioner as well the other accused.
In fact, they are totally innocent and they have not committed any
offence as alleged.
6. But the said submission is refuted by the learned Public
Prosecutor contending that this petitioner along with the other
BAIL APPL. NO. 8152 OF 2021
accused had received huge amount from various persons and now
the investigation of the case is in full swing. Accused No.2 alone
has been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge,
Thiruvananthapuram and the application filed by the 1st accused is
pending before this Court. The further argument addressed by the
learned Public Prosecutor is that the entire amount collected by the
accused were transferred to the account of this petitioner, who is
running the institution.
7. Though this petitioner has produced two documents to
show that the defacto complainant and her husband have been
appointed as employees in the institution, apart from these
documents, no document is available to show that they were
appointed in the institution as submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner. So also it is not prima facie evident from the records
that it is not a Central Government institution as presented by this
petitioner before the defacto complainant and others. But now the
investigation is well in progress and the petitioner has been in
custody since 11.09.2021. The materials so far available before me
are not sufficient to conclude that further detention of this
petitioner is required, though the seriousness of the offence alleged
BAIL APPL. NO. 8152 OF 2021
against him is grave in nature. The prosecution has no case that
any other crime has been registered against this petitioner so far
though it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that
complaints have been received from four other persons, who had
paid money believing the words of this petitioner as well the other
accused. Still materials are not available to indicate that further
detention of this petitioner is required for the investigating agency
to complete the investigation of the case. Therefore, this application
to enlarge him on bail is allowed subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his
executing a bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees
two lakhs only) with two solvent sureties for the like
sum each to the satisfaction of the court having
jurisdiction.
(ii) The petitioner shall appear before Investigating
Officer for interrogation as and when required by him,
in writing.
(iii) The petitioner 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
BAIL APPL. NO. 8152 OF 2021
police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while
on bail.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned
Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the
law.
Sd/-
SHIRCY V.
JUDGE
mpm
