Kerala High Court
Noufal vs State Of Kerala on 25 September, 2024
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2024:KER:71192
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 3RD ASWINA,
1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 7876 OF 2024
CRIME NO.463/2024 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN BAIL APPL.
NO.5877 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER:
NOUFAL
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. HAMZA, PICHATH HOUSE, PUTHUKKAL,
MOOPPAINAD KALPATTA, WAYANAD, PIN - 673581
BY ADVS.
NANDITHA S.
P.M.RAFIQ
M.REVIKRISHNAN
AJEESH K.SASI
SRUTHY N. BHAT
RAHUL SUNIL
SRUTHY K.K
SOHAIL AHAMMED HARRIS P.P.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
SR.PP SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:71192
BAIL APPL. NO. 7876 OF 2024
2
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2024
ORDER
The application is filed under Section 483 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in
short, BNSS), by the sole accused in Crime
No.463/2024 of the Pattambi Police Station,
Palakkad, which is registered against him for
allegedly committing the offences punishable under
Sections 408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The
petitioner was arrested on 29.08.2024.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that; the
accused was employed as the Manager of the Dubai
Gold and Diamonds from 01.01.2013 to 30.04.2024.
During the period between 01.01.2013 and
31.12.2023, the accused committed breach of trust
2024:KER:71192
BAIL APPL. NO. 7876 OF 2024
and manipulated the accounts of the transactions
with the customers pruchasing gold. The accused
cheated and caused a wrongful loss of Rs.19,50,000/-
to the de facto complainant. Thus, the accused has
committed the above offences.
3. Heard; Sri. P. Vijayabhanu, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.
Pushpalatha M.K, the learned Senior Public
Prosecutor.
4. The learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner strenuously argued that
the petitioner is innocent of the accusations levelled
against him. The petitioner had an unblemished
service with the de facto complainant's concern for a
decade. It is only after the petitioner resigned and
decided to start his own concern, that the de facto
complainant, to stall the petitioner becoming a rival
2024:KER:71192
BAIL APPL. NO. 7876 OF 2024
in the business, has instituted the fabricated case.
In fact, there is no material to substantiate the
petitioner's culpability in the crime. Even going by
the prosecution case, it is at the instance of one
customer's that the present complaint has been
filed. The petitioner is a law abiding citizen without
any criminal antecedents. In any given case, the
petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last
nearly one month, the investigation in the case is
complete, the recovery has been effected and the
charge sheet has been filed. Therefore, the
petitioner's further detention is unnecessary.
Hence, the application may be allowed.
5.The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
application. She submitted that there are
incriminating materials to substantiate the
petitioner's culpability in the crime. If the petitioner
2024:KER:71192
BAIL APPL. NO. 7876 OF 2024
is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of him
intimidating the witnesses and tampering with
evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed.
6. The prosecution allegation is that, during
the period from 01.01.2013 to 31.12.2023, while the
petitioner was employed as the Manager of the de
facto complainant's concern, he manipulated the
accounts, and cheated the de facto complainant and
committed criminal breach of trust. The fact remains
that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for
the last one month, the investigation in the case is
complete and the charge sheet has been laid. The
case is now presently numbered as C.C.
No.723/2024 before the jurisdictional Magistrate.
The materials placed on record do not show that the
petitioner has any criminal antecedents.
7. Recently, in Manish Sisodia v.
2024:KER:71192
BAIL APPL. NO. 7876 OF 2024
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 is the
rule and jail is an exception.
8. Similarly, in Jalaluddin Khan v Union of
2024:KER:71192
BAIL APPL. NO. 7876 OF 2024
India, [2024 INSC 604] the Honourable Supreme
Court has observed in the following lines:
"21. xxxxx 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. "
9. After bestowing my anxious consideration
to the facts, the rival submissions made across the
Bar and the materials placed on record, particularly
on considering the fact that the petitioner has been
in judicial custody for the last nearly one month, the
investigation in the case is complete, and the charge
2024:KER:71192
BAIL APPL. NO. 7876 OF 2024
sheet has been filed, I am of the firm view that the
petitioner's further detention is not necessary.
Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application.
In the result, the application is allowed, by
directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him
executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty
thousand 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 Saturday between 9
a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. 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
2024:KER:71192
BAIL APPL. NO. 7876 OF 2024
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 mentioned above, the jurisdictional court
shall be empowered to consider the application for
cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on
2024:KER:71192
BAIL APPL. NO. 7876 OF 2024
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
rmm/25/9/2024
