Rekha C.C vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 19074 Ker

Kerala High Court

Rekha C.C vs State Of Kerala on 1 July, 2024

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
   MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2024 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1946
                  BAIL APPL. NO. 4954 OF 2024
    CRIME NO.477/2024 OF KAIPAMANGALAM POLICE STATION,
                       THRISSUR, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

         REKHA C.C,
         AGED 42 YEARS
         W/O. PRAVEEN V.C., TEACHER, KAM UP SCHOOL,
         KAIPAMANGALAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680681,( THE NAME
         AND AGE IS CORRECTED AS PER THE ORDER DATED
         1.7.2024 IN CRL.M.A NO.1/2024)
         BY ADVS.
         K.N.ABHILASH
         SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
         RISHI VARMA T.R.
         RITHIK S.ANAND
         K.M.TINTU
         ANU PAUL
         SREELAKSHMI MENON P.


RESPONDENTS:

    1    STATE OF KERALA,
         REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
         KERALA, PIN - 682031
    2    STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
         KAIPAMANGALAM POLICE STATION,THRISSUR DISTRICT,
         PIN - 680681
    3    BLESSY MATHEW,
         D/O. MARY MATHEW, PANDIKADU THANATTUKUDI HOUSE,
         VENGOOR KARA DESOM, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM
         DISTRICT, PIN - 683542

          SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEETHA S.
     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.07.2024, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5324/2024 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A.Nos.4954, 5324 & 5396 of 2024

                                     -:2:-




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

         MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2024 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1946

                        BAIL APPL. NO. 5324 OF 2024

CRIME NO.506/2024 OF KAIPAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, THRISSUR

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
            REKHA C.C.,
            AGED 42 YEARS
            W/O. PRAVEEN V.C., VAZHOOR HOUSE, KOTHAKULAM, THRISSUR
            DISTRICT, TEACHER, KAM UP SCHOOL, KAIPAMANGALAM, THRISSUR,
            PIN - 680681
            BY ADVS.
            K.N.ABHILASH
            SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
            RISHI VARMA T.R.
            RITHIK S.ANAND
            SREELAKSHMI MENON P.
            K.M.TINTU
            ANU PAUL

RESPONDENTS:
     1      STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN
            - 682031
     2      STATION HOUSE OFFICER
            KAIPAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -
            680681
     3      ANNIE JYOTHIS
            W/O. JIO THOMAS, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, KENNADIAMUDDU,
            VAKKALA, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-, PIN - 682021

             SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEETHA S.

      THIS    BAIL   APPLICATION    HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON

01.07.2024, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4954/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A.Nos.4954, 5324 & 5396 of 2024

                                     -:3:-



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

         MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2024 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1946

                       BAIL APPL. NO. 5396 OF 2024

CRIME NO.509/2024 OF KAIPAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, THRISSUR

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
            REKHA C.C.
            AGED 42 YEARS
            W/O. PRAVEEN V.C., VAZHOOR HOUSE, KOTHAKULAM, THRISSUR
            DISTRICT, TEACHER, KAM UP SCHOOL, KAIPAMANGALAM, THRISSUR,
            PIN - 680681
            BY ADVS.
            K.N.ABHILASH
            SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
            RISHI VARMA T.R.
            RITHIK S.ANAND
            SREELAKSHMI MENON P.
            K.M.TINTU
            ANU PAUL

RESPONDENTS:
     1      STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN
            - 682031
     2      STATION HOUSE OFFICER
            KAIPAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -
            680681
     3      PRAJILA
            W/O. PRADEEP, KOCHUKADAVIL, PUTHENVELIKKARA, THRISSUR, PIN
            - 683594
             SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. NEEMA T.V.

      THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.07.2024,    ALONG    WITH   Bail     Appl..4954/2024   AND   CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A.Nos.4954, 5324 & 5396 of 2024

                                    -:4:-



                        COMMON ORDER

Dated this the 1st day of July 2024

The applications are filed under Section 438 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure for orders of pre-

arrest bail.

2. The petitioner is the second accused in Crime

Nos.477/2024, 506/2024 and 509/2024 of the

Kaipamangalam Police Station, Thrissur, registered

against the accused for allegedly committing the

offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of

the Indian Penal Code (IPC). B.A No. 4954/2024 is

filed in Crime No.477/2024, B.A No.5324/2024 is filed

in Crime No.506/2024 and B.A. No.5396/2024 is filed

in Crime No.509/2024. As the petitioner is the same in

the three crimes, the applications are consolidated,

jointly heard and disposed of by this common order. B.A.Nos.4954, 5324 & 5396 of 2024

3. The common case of the de facto

complainants in the above three crimes is that, the

first accused is the Manager of KAM UP School and

the accused 2 and 3 are the wife and mother of the

first accused. The second accused is a teacher in the

school. The first accused had published newspaper

advertisement wanting teachers for the lower primary

section of the school. Accordingly, an interview was

conducted and Rs.28,00,000/- was received from the

de facto complainant in Crime No.477/2024. The de

facto complainant was appointed as primary school

teacher on temporary basis for a period of two years

from 1.6.2022, but was not made permanent. The de

facto complainant in Crime No.506/2024 also paid

Rs.28,00,000/- and was appointed as a primary school

teacher on 6.6.2019, but was not given any salary or B.A.Nos.4954, 5324 & 5396 of 2024

made permanent. The de facto complainant in Crime

No.509/2024 paid an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- and

was made to work as a temporary teacher on

13.10.2023. She too was not made permanent or

given any salary. Thus, the accused have committed

the above offence.

4. Heard; Sri.Abhilash K.N. the learned counsel

for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., the learned

Senior Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the

accusations levelled against her. The petitioner is only

the wife of the first accused and is working as a

teacher in the school. Even going by the allegations

in the First Information Report, it is discernible that

the de facto complainants allegedly paid the amounts B.A.Nos.4954, 5324 & 5396 of 2024

to the first accused. The petitioner has not received

any amount from the de facto complainants. Even

assuming the amounts were paid by the de facto

complainants to the first accused, it is only because of

the fact that the Full Bench judgment of this Court was

set aside by the Honourable Supreme Court that the

employment could not be given. In any given case, the

petitioner is a lady and has no complicity in the crime.

Therefore, the petitioner's custodial interrogation is

not necessary and no recovery is to be effected.

Hence, the applications may be allowed.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously

opposed the application. She submitted that the

petitioner in connivance with accused 1 and 3, had

conspired and received money from the de facto

complainants by assuring them employments in the B.A.Nos.4954, 5324 & 5396 of 2024

school. The petitioner is the beneficiary of the crime.

The petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary

and recovery is to be effected. If the petitioner is

granted orders of pre-arrest bail, it may hamper the

investigation. Hence, the applications may be

dismissed. Nonetheless, she did not dispute the fact

that it was the first accused who received money from

the de facto complainants and the first accused has

been arrested and is in judicial custody.

7. A reading of the allegations in the First

Information Report would substantiate that the de

facto complainants had paid the amounts to the first

accused/ the Manager of the school. There is no

allegation that the de facto complainants had paid any

amount directly to the petitioner or that she made any

inducement that she would give an employment, which B.A.Nos.4954, 5324 & 5396 of 2024

by law is not possible since only the Manager can

make appointment in the school. The petitioner is

only a paid teacher in the school.

8. The parameters to grant an order of pre-arrest

bail have been succinctly laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre

v. State of Maharashtra [(2011) 1 SCC 694] in the

following lines:

"111. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualised for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with the legislative intention the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. As aptly observed in Satishchandra Ratanlal the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia case [(1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465] that the High Court or the Court of Session has to exercise their jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC by a wise and careful use of their discretion which by their long training and experience they are ideally suited to do. In any event, this is the legislative mandate which we are B.A.Nos.4954, 5324 & 5396 of 2024

bound to respect and honour.

112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the

accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;

(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;

(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences;

(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;

(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people;

(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because overimplication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;

(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no B.A.Nos.4954, 5324 & 5396 of 2024

prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;

(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;

(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail".

9. On an overall appreciation of the facts, the rival

submissions made across the Bar and the materials

placed on record, particularly considering the fact that

the petitioner is only a teacher in the school, prima

facie the petitioner has not received any monetary

benefit in the alleged transactions, that the first

accused was the Manager of the school and further

that there is no likelihood of the petitioner fleeing

from justice or her custodial interrogation is necessary, B.A.Nos.4954, 5324 & 5396 of 2024

I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out valid

grounds to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this

Court under Section 438 of the Code. Hence, I am

inclined to allow the application, but subject to the

condition that the petitioner co-operates with the

investigation.

In the result, the applications are allowed subject

to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner is directed to surrender before

the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today.

(ii) In the event of the petitioner's arrest, the Investigating Officer shall release the petitioner on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each;

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. B.A.Nos.4954, 5324 & 5396 of 2024

(iv) 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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;

(v) The petitioner shall surrender her passport before the jurisdictional court concerned within a period of one week from the date of her release on bail. If she has no passport, she shall file an affidavit to the effect before the said court within the said period;

(vi)The petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence while on bail;

(vii) In case of violation of any of the conditions 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.

(viii)Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the court B.A.Nos.4954, 5324 & 5396 of 2024

below.

(ix) 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].

(x) The observations made in this order are only for the purpose of considering the application and the same shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case to be decided by competent Courts.

SD/-

rmm1/7/2024 C.S.DIAS,JUDGE