Kerala High Court
Thillai Selvan Mani 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. 3057 OF 2024
CRIME NO.387/2024 OF Ernakulam South Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONERS/3RD 4TH ACCUSED:
1 THILLAI SELVAN MANI
AGED 29 YEARS
RESIDING AT 17/5 I,MAHAKAVI BHARATHIYAR
SALAI,MATHAVAPURAM,KANYAKUMARI,AGASTEEWARAM P.O
KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT TAMIL NADU, PIN - 629702
2 NANTHU MATHAV. M
AGED 22 YEARS
RESIDING AT 5/3,SAIVA MUTHAIYA,3RD
STREET,ROYAPETTAH,CHENNAI,TAMIL NADU, PIN - 600014
BY ADVS.
B.DIPU SACH DEEV
ARUN BABU
ANEESHRAJ R.
RESPONDENT/PROSECUTION/INVESTIGATION:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
ADV. SEENA C - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BA NO. 3057 OF 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------
B.A.No. 3057 of 2024
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.387 of
2024 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station. The above
case is registered alleging offences punishable under
Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code and also under Section 10 read with Section 24 of the
Emigration Act. The petitioner was arrested on 10.03.2024.
3. The crux of the prosecution case, is that; the 1st
accused is the owner and the 2nd accused is the Manager of
an institution named 'Kattoorans Institute of Technology',
which has no authorisation to recruit candidates for
overseas employment. However, by suppressing these facts,
the accused published an advertisement on the social media
and received Rs.1,65,000/- from two ladies assuring them
BA NO. 3057 OF 2024
job as registered nurse at Italy. However, the accused did
not arrange the job or return the money to the victims. The
allegation of the de facto complainant is that, he had lost
Rs.2000/- due to the overt act of the accused. Thus, the
accused have committed the above offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the 1st and 2nd accused are already released on bail as
per order dated 09.04.2024 in B.A No.2777 of 2024 and
04.04.2024 in B.A No.2741 of 2024. The learned counsel
submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any
condition if this Court grant them bail. The learned Public
Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and also considering the fact that the 1st and 2nd accused
were already released on bail, I think the bail application
can be allowed.
7. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the
bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble
BA NO. 3057 OF 2024
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.
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. Petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a
bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)
with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
2. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating
Officer for interrogation as and when required. The
petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and
shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
BA NO. 3057 OF 2024
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
3. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of
the jurisdictional Court.
4. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of
the commission of which he is suspected.
5. The petitioners shall appear before the investigating
officer on all Mondays till final report is filed.
6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the
petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the
bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is
granted by this Court.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
AP JUDGE
