Kerala High Court
Shinoy Ks 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. 3162 OF 2024
CRIME NO.42/2024 OF ERNAKULAM SOUTH POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMC NO.42 OF 2024 OF
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM
...............................
PETITIONER/ACCUSED :
SHINOY K.S., AGED 39 YEARS
KANIYATH HOUSE, KAITHARAM P.O,
NORTH PARAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 519.
BY ADV V.VISAL AJAYAN
RESPONDENT/STATE OF KERALA :
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
PP SRI PRASANTH M P
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 3162 OF 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
.............................................
B.A.No.3162 of 2024
.............................................................
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973.
2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 42/2024 of
Ernakulam Town South Police Station. The above case is
registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable
under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner is running a travel
agency in the name and style as 'Sirra International'. The
petitioner with a dishonest intention to cheat received an
amount of Rs.89,924/- from the de facto complainant to
facilitate air tickets to London on 10.01.2024 and the
BAIL APPL. NO. 3162 OF 2024
petitioner could not keep the promise as alleged. Hence, it is
alleged that the accused committed the offences.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. After hearing both sides and after going through Annexure-A1
FIR, I am of the considered opinion that the custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Petitioner can
be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer, as and
when required.
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
BAIL APPL. NO. 3162 OF 2024
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 each
for the like sum 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
they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is
suspected;
8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner,
the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to
BAIL APPL. NO. 3162 OF 2024
law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.
9. 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
AMV/19/04/2024
