Kerala High Court
Mohan B 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. 3154 OF 2024
CRIME NO.409/2024 OF Harbour Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MOHAN B
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. C.K. BALAN, B2 GALAXY LUXOR,
ST. SEBASTIAN ROAD, KADAVANTHARA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682020
BY ADVS.
K.S.SREERAJ
J.RAMKUMAR
GAYATHRI A.L.
SREEPARVATHY M.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY SRI.M.P.PRASANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.3154 of 2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
B.A.No.3154 of 2024
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of of April, 2024
O R D E R
Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.409/2024
of Harbour Police Station, Ernakulam. The above
case is registered alleging offences punishable
under Sections 406 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner
is an employee of the Indian Navy. He offered an
employment for the husband of the defacto
complainant in the Indian Navy and accordingly,
huge amount is collected from the defacto
complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner failed to
keep his promise and not returned the amount and
thus committed the aforesaid offences.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and also
the learned counsel appearing for the victim.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is going to retire in
April, 2024. It is submitted that the defacto
complainant is working as a Telephone Supervisor
at the Telephone Exchange, Naval Base. It is also
submitted that the allegations against the
petitioner is false and that the petitioner is
ready to abide any conditions if this Court grants
him anticipatory bail. The learned Public
Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application.
5. After hearing both the sides, I am of the
considered opinion that this bail application can
be allowed on stringent conditions. The petitioner
is working in Navy and he is going to retire in
April, 2024. According to the petitioner, the
defacto complainant is working as a Telephone
Supervisor at the Telephone Exchange, Naval Base.
It is surprising to see that an employee, who is
working in a public undertaking, is giving huge
amount for getting job in Navy to her husband. I
do not want to make any further observation about
the same. Considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, I am of the considered opinion that
the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is
not necessary. 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. The petitioners shall appear before the
investigating officer on all Mondays at 10 a.m
till final report is filed.
vi. 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;
vii. 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.
viii. 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
