Shylaja S vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 26854 Ker

Kerala High Court

Shylaja S vs State Of Kerala on 6 September, 2024

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                      2024:KER:67668

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

 FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 15TH BHADRA, 1946

                   BAIL APPL. NO. 6554 OF 2024

 CRIME NO.1007/2023 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

PETITIONER:
          SHYLAJA S,
          AGED 53 YEARS
          W/O.SUDHEER, PANAVILA HOUSE,
          VAIDYASALA NAGAR-207,
          ASRAMAM P.O,KOLLAM DISTRICT.,
          PIN - 691002


         BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW


RESPONDENTS:

    1    STATE OF KERALA,
         REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
         HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
         KOCHI., PIN - 682031

    2    USHA,
         AGED 56 YEARS
         W/O.MOHANAN, AAYATHIL HOUSE, NO.67,
         RAM NILAYAM, SNEHA NAGAR,
         DIVISION NO.25, KOLLAM.,
         PIN - 691011

    3    REKHA S,
         AGED 44 YEARS
         W/O.AJAYAN, ANIPALLIL HOUSE,
         RESIDENCY ROAD,ASRAMAM P.O, KOLLAM,
         PIN - 691002
 B.A.No.6554/2024

                                        -:2:-

                                                         2024:KER:67668

       4           LATHAKUMARI,
                   AGED 56 YEARS
                   W/O.AJAYAN, KADAMPATTU PUTHENVEEDU,
                   MYTHRI NAGAR, ASRAMAM P.O, KOLLAM.,
                   PIN - 691002

       5           ISHA,
                   AGED 38 YEARS
                   W/O.GIREESAN, PANAVILA VADAKKATHIL,
                   VAIDYASALA NAGAR, ASRAMAM P.O,
                   KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691002


                   BY ADV GEORGE V. PAUL


OTHER PRESENT:

                   SR PP SMT SEETHA S

      THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION             ON
06.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No.6554/2024

                                          -:3:-

                                                                   2024:KER:67668

                                   ORDER

Dated this the 6th day of September, 2024

The application is filed under Section 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the sole

accused in Crime No.1007/2023 of the Kollam East

Police Station, Kollam, which is registered against her

for allegedly committing the offences punishable under

Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to

judicial custody on 29.07.2024.

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

accused, who was appointed as a Mahila Pradhan

Agent of National Savings Scheme, Kollam district

Head Quarters, during the period between 2017 to

2022, collected money from depositors of the de-facto

complainant, but failed to remit the same to the district

Head Quarters/de-facto complainant, instead

2024:KER:67668

misappropriated the money. The preliminary

investigation reveals that the petitioner has

misappropriated Rs.50,000/- from four depositors.

Many other investors have also been cheated by the

accused. Thus, the accused has committed the above

offences.

3. Heard; Sri. Nireesh Mathew, the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner; Smt. Seetha S.,

the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and Sri. George

V. Paul, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents 2 to 5.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the

accusations levelled against her. There is no material

to substantiate that the petitioner has committed the

above offences. It is true that the petitioner was a

Mahila Pradhan agent of the National Savings Scheme

2024:KER:67668

of Kollam District. It is only due to the affliction of her

husband that she was unable to remit the collected

money under the scheme. The petitioner has now

settled the disputes with the respondents 2 to 5 and

she is making efforts to remit the collected money. In

any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial

custody for the last 40 days, the investigation in the

case is complete, the recovery has been effected, and

the charge sheet has been filed on 16.08.2024.

Moreover, the petitioner is a lady without any criminal

antecedents. Even going by the prosecution allegation,

there is only one crime registered against the

petitioner. Hence, the application may be allowed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

application. She submitted that the petitioner has

misappropriated the deposits made by 14 of the

depositors under the scheme. Merely because the

2024:KER:67668

petitioner has settled the disputes with the

respondents 2 to 5, and the same will not exonerate

her liability. A factual enquiry was conducted by the

District Collector, Kollam, and a report has been filed

on 30.06.2023, which clearly reveals that the petitioner

has committed the above offences. If the petitioner is

released on bail, there is every likelihood of her

influencing the witnesses and tampering with the

evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents 2

to 5 submitted that the dispute between the petitioner

and the said respondents has been amicably settled,

and they have no subsisting grievance against the

petitioner. Therefore, the said respondents have no

objection in the petitioner being enlarged on bail.

7. The prosecution allegation is that, while

the accused was working as Mahila Pradhan Agent of

2024:KER:67668

the National Savings Scheme, Kollam District Head

Quarters, she misappropriated the remittances made

by the depositors under the Scheme and cheated the

de-facto complainant of Rs.50,000/-. Even though the

learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are 14

affected persons in the crime, the total amount

involved is Rs.50,000/-. It is not disputed that the

petitioner has settled the dispute with the respondents

2 to 5. However, it may not be the sole ground to

enlarge the petitioner on bail, as rightly pointed out by

the learned Public Prosecutor, as the offences are

committed against the State. Nonetheless, the fact

remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody

for the last 40 days, the investigation in the case is

complete, the recovery has been effected, and the

charge sheet has been filed on 16.08.2024.

Furthermore, the respondents 2 to 5 have submitted

2024:KER:67668

that they have no subsisting grievance and the

petitioner is a lady without any criminal antecedents.

8. Recently, in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate

of Enforcement [2024 INSC 595] the Honourable

Supreme Court has observed that, over a period of

time, the trial courts and the High Courts have

forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is

not to be withheld as a punishment. From its

experience, it appears that the trial courts and the

High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of

bail. The principle that bail is the rule and refusal is an

exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account

of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and

shut cases, the Honourable Supreme Court is flooded

with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to

the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts

and the High Courts recognize the principle that "bail

2024:KER:67668

is the rule and jail is an exception.

9. Similarly, in Jalaluddin Khan v Union

of India [2024 INSC 604] has observed in the

following lines:

"21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention here that the Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant's case could not be properly appreciated. When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. "Bail is the rule and jail is an exception" is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the

rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution."

10. On an overall consideration of the facts,

the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the

2024:KER:67668

materials placed on record, particularly on

comprehending the fact that the petitioner has been in

judicial custody for the last 40 days, the investigation

in the case is complete, the recovery has been effected,

the charge sheet has been laid, and furthermore, the

petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, I

am of the definite view that the petitioner's further

detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow

the bail application, but subject to stringent conditions.

In the result, the application is allowed, by

directing the petitioner to be released on bail on her

executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh

only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to

the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which

shall be subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every third Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the conclusion of

2024:KER:67668

the trial in Crime No.1007/2023. She 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 her 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 she is on bail;

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Kollam, without the previous permission of the jurisdictional court;

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

2024:KER:67668

(vi) 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.

(vii)Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be filed and entertained before the court below.

(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/-

                                              C.S.DIAS,JUDGE
DST/06.09.24                                                        //True copy//

                                                                    P.A. To Judge