Kerala High Court
Jilson P.T vs State Of Kerala on 19 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
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 30TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2633 OF 2024
CRIME NO.200/2024 OF Chengamanad Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
JILSON P.T, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O P.T. THOMAS,
SENIOR CLERK, AYROOR SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD
NO.2237, PANIKULANGARA HOUSE, ATTUPURAM, AYROOR
P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683579
BY ADVS.
M.PAUL VARGHESE
M.M.MONAYE
K.V.SANOSH
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF
POLICE, CHENGAMANAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
RURAL DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
* 2 AYOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 2237
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM,
KERALA 680101 ,EUGIN CLEETUS S/O CLEETUS AGED 40
YEARS VAZHAVILATHOTTAM HOUSE PADAPPAKARA KARA,
PERAYAM VILLAGE KOLLAM DISTRICT
* [ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.04.2024
IN CRL.M.A.NOS.1 & 2 OF 2024]
BY ADVS.
SABIR
M.K.SHAJI
PP SMT SEENA C
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.2633 of 2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
B.A.No.2633 of 2024
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of of April, 2024
O R D E R
Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.200/2024
of Chengamanad Police Station. The above case is
registered alleging offences punishable under
Sections 409 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case is that when the
accused was in charge of the Secretary of the
Ayiroor Service Co-operative Bank from 01.09.2021
to 22.08.2022 an amount of Rs.1,09,121/- took and
remitted to Parur Taluk Employees Co-operative
Society and used the digital signature after the
tenure of his charge as Secretary.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the above case is a false case
foisted against the petitioner. It is submitted
that the same allegations were raised in the
disciplinary proceedings and this Court, as per
Annexure A1 judgment dated 14.12.2023 in WP(C)
No.38056 of 2023, quashed the same. It is also
submitted that the suspension order of the defacto
complainant against the petitioner was also
quashed by this Court as per Annexure A2 judgment
dated 15.025.2024 in WP(C) No.21513 of 2023. It is
further submitted that another charge issued by
the defacto complainant on the petitioner was
stayed by this Court as evident by Annexure A3
order dated 26.02.2024 in WP(C) No.7338 of 2024.
According to the petitioner, knowing that he
initiated a contempt proceeding in pursuant to
Annexure A1 judgment, for not reinstating him, the
present case is filed.
5. After hearing both the sides, I am of the
considered opinion that this bail application can
be allowed on stringent conditions. It is a fact
that the petitioner approached this Court on
earlier occasion with writ petitions and this
Court interfered with the disciplinary proceedings
and suspension order. But whether the allegation
in the present criminal case is same in the
disciplinary proceedings is to be investigated by
the Investigating Officer. Anyway, the prosecution
has to prove the case through documentary
evidence. I am of the considered opinion that the
custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not
necessary in the facts and circumstances of the
case. Therefore, this bail application can be
allowed on stringent conditions.
6. 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.
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:
i. Petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer within ten days from today
and shall undergo interrogation;
ii. 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 for the like sum each to
the satisfaction of the officer concerned;
iii. 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;
iv. Petitioner shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court;
v. Petitioner shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which he is an accused,
or suspected, of the commission of which he is
suspected;
vi. 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.
vii. 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
sp/19/04/2024
