Kerala High Court
V Hamsa vs State Of Kerala on 4 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 14TH VAISAKHA, 1944
BAIL APPL. NO. 2955 OF 2022
CRIME NO.VC.01/19/SCE/2019 OF VACB, ERNAKULAM, Ernakulam
PETITIONER:
V HAMSA
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O KUNJIPPU,
VELLIAPPANTHODI HOUSE,
KARUMANAM KURUSSI P.O,
VELLINEZHI,
PALAKKAD
, PIN - 679504
BY ADVS.
S.RAJEEV
V.VINAY
M.S.ANEER
SARATH K.P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM
(CRIME NO VC.01/19/SCE OF 2019 OF
VACB SPECIAL CELL, ERNAKULAM)
, PIN - 682031
2 VACB SPECIAL CELL
ERNAKULAM
(CRIME NO. VC.01/19/SCE OF 2019 OF
VACB SPECIAL CELL, ERNAKULAM)
, PIN - 682017
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.05.2022, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.2955 of 2022
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.2955 of 2022
-------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of May, 2022
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal
Procedure Code.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.VC No.01/19/SCE
registered by VACB Special Cell, Ernakulam, alleging offence
punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) of the
Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act.
3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner who was
working as Government servant during the period from 01.01.2009 to
30.09.2018 was found in possession of pecuniary resource and
properties, disproportionate to the known source of income. The
allegation is that there is 63.42% excess income, calculated by the
Investigating Officer. Annexure 1 is the FIR.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
B.A.No.2955 of 2022
The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against
the petitioner is not correct. The Counsel submitted that the petitioner
is ready to co-operate with the investigation. The Public Prosecutor
would submitted that, the petitioner is not co-operating with the
investigation and if this Court is granting bail, there may a direction to
the petitioner to co-operate with the investigation. In the light of the
above submission, I think the bail application can be allowed on
condition that petitioner should co-operate with the investigation and
surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days.
5. 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.
6. Recently the Apex Court in Siddharth v State of Uttar
B.A.No.2955 of 2022
Pradesh and Another (2021(5)KHC 353) considered the point in
detail. The relevant paragraph of the above judgment is extracted
hereunder.
"12. We may note that personal liberty is an important
aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest
an accused during investigation arises when custodial
investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or
where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or
accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be
made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest
must be made. A distinction must be made between the
existence of the power to arrest and the justification for
exercise of it. (Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others
(1994 KHC 189: (1994) 4 SCC 260: 1994 (1) KLT 919:
1994 (2) KLJ 97: AIR 1994 SC 1349: 1994 CriLJ 1981)) If
arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the
reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating
Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will
abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout
cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why
there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the
accused."
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. The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer within two weeks from today
and shall undergo interrogation.
B.A.No.2955 of 2022
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating
Officer propose 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 arresting 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 accused, or
B.A.No.2955 of 2022
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.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
Nsd
B.A.No.2955 of 2022
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2955/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I A COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. VC.01/19/SCE OF
VACB SPECIAL CELL, ERNAKULAM
Annexure II A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 03.10.2018
Annexure III A COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE CERTIFICATE
RECEIVED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT
Annexure IV A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 23.09.2019
