Kerala High Court
Jayaram K.G vs State Of Kerala on 16 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
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 27TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2144 OF 2024
CRIME NO.210/2024 OF Narakkal Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:
JAYARAM K.G.,
AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O GANGADHARAN, KALLARAKKAL KURIES & LOANS,PALLIPORT
P.O., MUNAMBAM, KOCHI, PIN - 683515
BY ADV BABU CHERUKARA
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER ,
NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION,NJARAKKAL P.O., PIN - 682505
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PRASHANTH M.P
PP; PRASANTH M P
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 2144 OF 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.2144 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal
Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) .
2. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.210/2024 of
Njarakkal Police Station. The above case is registered against the
petitioner and others alleging offence punishable under Sections
406, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant
deposited an amount of Rs. 9 lakhs in the establishment Kallarakal
Kuries and an amount of Rs.3 lakhs was due as per a gold plan
scheme of the said establishment. It is mentioned by the defacto
complainant that the first accused and the second accused are the
persons to whom the establishment belonged and the said amount
are not paid back by the accused persons and even after the
maturity period of both chit and gold plan scheme. Hence, the case
is registered.
BAIL APPL. NO. 2144 OF 2024
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto
complainant was issued with a cheque for the amount due but the
same was dishonoured. Consequently, two complaint under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is filed against the
petitioner, which is pending as S.T.Nos.708 and 1056 of 2023. The
present complaint is filed with the same set of facts. The Public
Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
6. Admittedly, two complaints are filed against 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, for the dishonour of cheque. For the
same set of fact, the present case is registered alleging offence
punishable under Section 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC. I think the custodial
interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary in the facts
and circumstances of the case. There can be a direction to the
petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate
with the investigation.
7. 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
BAIL APPL. NO. 2144 OF 2024
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.
8. 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. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo
interrogation;
2. 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 each for
the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;
3. 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 her 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. If any of the above conditions are violated by the
BAIL APPL. NO. 2144 OF 2024
petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in
accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this
Court.
7. 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
msp
BAIL APPL. NO. 2144 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2144/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DAILY STATUS OF ST. NO.708
OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT, NJARACKAL OBTAINED FROM E-COURTS
WEBSITE.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE DAILY STATUS OF ST. NO.1056
OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT, NJARACKAL OBTAINED FROM E-COURTS
WEBSITE.
