Vishnu vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 11417 Ker

Kerala High Court

Vishnu vs State Of Kerala on 23 April, 2024

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

BAIL APPL. NO. 3228 OF 2024
                                 1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
   TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 3RD VAISAKHA, 1946
                    BAIL APPL. NO. 3228 OF 2024
  CRIME NO.14/2024 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, THRISSUR,
                              Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMP NO.2468 OF 2024 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,IRINJALAKUDA
PETITIONER/S:

          VISHNU
          AGED 27 YEARS
          S/O MOHANA CHANDRAN, PULIKKAKONATH HOUSE,
          PULIMATHU.P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 695612

          BY ADVS.
          A.RAJASIMHAN
          VYKHARI.K.U
          SHARAFUDHEEN M.K.



RESPONDENT/S:

          STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
          KERALA, PIN - 682031


OTHER PRESENT:

          SR.P.P.SMT.NEEMA.T.V.




     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 3228 OF 2024
                              2

            Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2024

                         ORDER

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused in Crime

No.14/2024 of the Cyber Crime Police Station, Thrissur,

registered against the accused, for allegedly committing

the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian

Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') and Section 66D of the

Information Technology Act. The petitioner was arrested

on 22.03.2024.

2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: the

accused got acquainted to the defacto complainant

through Facebook. Then, the accused had introduced

himself as a lady employee of the HDFC Bank, Hyderabad,

with an intention to cheat the defacto complainant.

Accordingly, he made the defacto complainant believe that

he would be made permanent in the bank, if he had

achieved the target. Accordingly, the accused made the

defacto complainant transfer an amount of Rs.3,15,000/- BAIL APPL. NO. 3228 OF 2024

during the period from 01.11.2023 to 01.01.2024 on an

assurance that the accused would repay the amount to the

defacto complainant. However, the accused failed to

return the money. Thus, the accused has committed the

above offences.

3. Heard; Sri.A.Rajasimhan, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V., the

learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations

leveled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the

crime. A reading of Annexure A1 First Information Report

would substantiate that the offences alleged against the

petitioner will not be attracted. In any given case, the

petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last one

month, the investigation in the case is complete and

recovery has been effected. Moreover, the petitioner does

not have criminal antecedents. Therefore, the petitioner's BAIL APPL. NO. 3228 OF 2024

further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application

may be allowed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

application. She submitted that the investigation in the

case is in progress. She further stated that if the petitioner

is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him

committing similar offences. Hence, the application may

be dismissed.

6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is

that he induced the defacto complainant to pay an amount

of Rs.3,15,000/- on the promise that he would return the

money to the defacto complainant. However, the accused

failed to return the money to the defacto complainant. The

fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial

custody for the last one month, the investigation in the

case is complete and recovery has been effected. BAIL APPL. NO. 3228 OF 2024

7. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, [2012 1 SCC 40], the

Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the

fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the

presumption of innocence, until a person is found guilty.

Any imprisonment prior to conviction is to be considered

as punitive and it would be improper on the part of the

Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former

conduct.

8. In Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., [(2018) 3 SCC

22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of

bail is the rule and putting a person in jail is an exception.

Even though the grant of bail is entirely the discretion of

the court, it has to be evaluated based on the facts and

circumstances of each case and the discretion has to be

exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner.

9. In State of Kerala v. Raneef, [(2011) 1 SCC 784], BAIL APPL. NO. 3228 OF 2024

the Honourable Supreme Court has declared that

undertrial prisoners detained in jail for indefinite periods,

without any sufficient reason or due to the delay in

concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of

their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution.

10. In Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy.,

State of Bihar [(1980) 1 SCC 81], the Honourable

Supreme Court while dealing with a case of under trials,

who suffered long incarceration, held that the procedure

that keeps large number of people behind the bars without

trial for long is unreasonable and unfair, and is not in

conformity with the mandate of Article 21 of the

Constitution of India.

11. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an

exception is on the touch stone of Article 21 of the BAIL APPL. NO. 3228 OF 2024

Constitution of India. Once the charge sheet is filed, a

strong case has to be made out for continuing a person in

judicial custody. The right to bail cannot be denied merely

due to the sentiments of the society.

12. On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival

submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed

on record, particularly taking note of the fact that the

petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last one

month, the investigation in the case is practically

complete, the recovery has been effected and further that

the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, I

am of the view that the petitioner's further detention is

unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the application.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing

the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a

bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two

solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction BAIL APPL. NO. 3228 OF 2024

of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to

the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is filed. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure 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 or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;

(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail;

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;

(v) In case of violation of any of the conditions BAIL APPL. NO. 3228 OF 2024

mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.

(vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below.

(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/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rkc/23.04.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 3228 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3228/2024

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO 14 OF 2024 DATED 17-3-2024 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, THRISSUR RURAL

Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P. NO. 2468 OF 2024 DATED 2-4-2024 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKUDA