High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail granted; six bail applications allowed wit...
Affin Thomas v. State of Kerala
Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NOS.895/2024, 922/2024, 924/2024, 925/2024, 927/2024, 928/2024
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- C. S. Dias
- Judgment Date
- 2024-02-09
- Court Decision / Holding
- The common order allows the six bail applications. The court directs the petitioner to be released on bail on bonds of Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties each, subject to conditions: regular appearances; no inducement or tampering with witnesses or evidence; no offences while on bail; surrender of passport if available; provision of current and permanent addresses and mobile number; No travel outside the Ernakulam Sessions Court’s territorial jurisdiction without permission; power to cancel bail for violation; ability to move for modification of conditions; and authority for the investigating officer to recover information if necessary, as guided by Sushila Aggarwal.
- Final Disposition
- Bail granted; six bail applications allowed with conditions
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Affin Thomas
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • S. Rajeev
- • V. Vinay
- • M. S. Aneer Prerith
- • Philip Joseph
- • Anil Kumar C.R.
- • K.S. Kiran Krishnan
Counsels for Respondents
- • Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Case Synopsis & Summary
Six connected bail petitions (BAIL APPL. NOS. 895/2024, 922/2024, 924/2024, 925/2024, 927/2024, 928/2024) were heard together by Justice C. S. Dias in the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner, Affin Thomas, is the first accused in six Kalamassery Police Station cases (2608/2023, 2689/2023, 28/2024, 2688/2023, 29/2024, 2821/2023) alleging offences under sections 406 and 420 read with 34 IPC, arising from alleged cheating and misappropriation in relation to purported tuition-fee collection and admission promises for a German nursing program via ABRO-AID Immigration Service. Arrested on 17.12.2023, the petitioner had earlier been released on statutory bail in Crime No.2454/2023, also investigated by the same police station. The maximum punishment for the offences is 10 years, and the prosecution contends that the investigations are ongoing with potential tampering risks if bail is granted. The defense contends innocence, alleging a failed course arrangement due to a faculty departure, and emphasizes that investigations in the six crimes are near completion with recoveries made. Relying on Sanjay Chandra, Dataram Singh, and State of Kerala v. Raneef, the court stresses presumption of innocence and cautions against unnecessary detention. The court ultimately grants bail in all six applications on Rs.1,00,000 bonds with two sureties each, subject to conditions including regular appearances, non-tampering, passport surrender if applicable, address updates, territorial limits, and potential modification of conditions under law.
Provisions of Law Cited
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal CodeArticle 21 of the Constitution of India
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Presumption of innocence until guilt is proved (Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, 2012 (1) SCC 40)
- Grant of bail is the rule and imprisonment prior to conviction is the exception (Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22)
- Undertrial detention and Article 21 rights (State of Kerala v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784)
- Guidance on bail conditions and recoveries while on bail (Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2020 (1) KHC 663)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends total innocence and false implication. He maintains he arranged a German-language course for students and that the faculty left, causing non-completion of the course. He notes prior arrest in Crime No.2454/2023, subsequent statutory bail, and argues investigations in the six cases are nearly complete with recoveries effected. He asserts willingness to cooperate and abide by strict conditions; he emphasizes that lengthy pre-trial detention would violate fundamental rights and that the maximum punishment is ten years, making detention disproportionate given the circumstances.
Contentions of Respondents
The State prosecutes six crimes (2608/2023, 2689/2023, 28/2024, 2688/2023, 29/2024, 2821/2023) and argues investigations remain ongoing, with potential tampering risk and flight risk if released. It highlights prior arrest and the additional Crime No.2454/2023, urging denial of bail pending completion of inquiry and confrontation with the evidence, asserting the likelihood of continuing deceit and jeopardy to investigations.
Cited Precedents (4)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sanjay Chandra v. CBI | 2012 (1) SCC 40 | Positive | Cited to reinforce presumption of innocence and that bail should not be denied merely on past conduct. |
| Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. | (2018) 3 SCC 22 | Positive | Cited for the principle that bail is the rule and pre-trial detention is the exception. |
| State of Kerala v. Raneef | (2011) 1 SCC 784 | Positive | Cited regarding rights of undertrial prisoners and Article 21. |
| Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another | 2020 (1) KHC 663 | Mentioned Only | Cited for bail conditions framework and maintaining recoveries while on bail; used as guiding authority rather than central to the decision. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Affin Thomas v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
Bail Appl. Nos.895/2024, 922/2024, 924/2024, 925/2024, 927/2024, 928/2024
1
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS**
**FRIDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 20TH MAGHA, 1945**
**BAIL APPL. NO. 895 OF 2024**
**CRIME NO.2608/2023 OF Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT Bail Appl. 113/2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA**
## **PETITIONER/S:**
AFFIN THOMAS AGED 39 YEARS S/O THOMAS M J MANIANGATTU HOUSE NEELEESWARAM MALAYATOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM -, PIN - 683587 BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV V.VINAY M.S.ANEER PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH ANILKUMAR C.R. K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
## **OTHER PRESENT:**
SR PP SMT NEEMA T V
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.02.2024, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..922/2024, 924/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl. Nos.895/2024, 922/2024, 924/2024, 925/2024, 927/2024, 928/2024
2
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS**
**FRIDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 20TH MAGHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 922 OF 2024**
**CRIME NO.2689/2023 OF Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT Bail Appl. 115/2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA**
## **PETITIONER/S:**
AFFIN THOMAS AGED 39 YEARS MANIANGATTU HOUSE NEELEESWARAM MALAYATOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULA, PIN - 683587 BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV M.S.ANEER V.VINAY PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH ANILKUMAR C.R. K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
## **OTHER PRESENT:**
SR PP SMT SEETHA S
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.02.2024, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..895/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl. Nos.895/2024, 922/2024, 924/2024, 925/2024, 927/2024, 928/2024
3
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS**
**FRIDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 20TH MAGHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 924 OF 2024**
**CRIME NO.28/2024 OF Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CMP 146/2024 OF JMFC, KALAMASSERY (TEMPORARY)**
## **PETITIONER/S:**
AFFIN THOMAS AGED 39 YEARS S/O THOMAS M J MANIANGATTU HOUSE NEELEESWARAM MALAYATOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM -, PIN - 683587 BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV V.VINAY M.S.ANEER PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH ANILKUMAR C.R. K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
## **OTHER PRESENT:**
SR PP SMT SEETHA S
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.02.2024, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..895/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl. Nos.895/2024, 922/2024, 924/2024, 925/2024, 927/2024, 928/2024
4
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS**
**FRIDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 20TH MAGHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 925 OF 2024**
**CRIME NO.2688/2023 OF Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT Bail Appl. 115/2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA**
## **PETITIONER/S:**
AFFIN THOMAS AGED 39 YEARS S/O THOMAS M J MANIANGATTU HOUSE NEELEESWARAM MALAYATOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM -, PIN - 683587 BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV V.VINAY M.S.ANEER PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH ANILKUMAR C.R. K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
## **OTHER PRESENT:**
SR PP SMT NEEMA T V
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.02.2024, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..895/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl. Nos.895/2024, 922/2024, 924/2024, 925/2024, 927/2024, 928/2024
5
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS**
**FRIDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 20TH MAGHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 927 OF 2024**
**CRIME NO.29/2024 OF Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CMP 145/2024 OF JMFC, KALAMASSERY (TEMPORARY)**
## **PETITIONER/S:**
AFFIN THOMAS AGED 39 YEARS S/O THOMAS M J MANIANGATTU HOUSE NEELEESWARAM MALAYATOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM -, PIN - 683587 BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV V.VINAY M.S.ANEER PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH ANILKUMAR C.R. K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
## **OTHER PRESENT:**
SR PP SMT NEEMA T V
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.02.2024, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..895/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl. Nos.895/2024, 922/2024, 924/2024, 925/2024, 927/2024, 928/2024
6
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
# **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS**
**FRIDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 20TH MAGHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 928 OF 2024**
**CRIME NO.2821/2023 OF Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CMP 144/2024 OF JMFC, KALAMASSERY (TEMPORARY)**
## **PETITIONER/S:**
AFFIN THOMAS AGED 39 YEARS S/O THOMAS M J MANIANGATTU HOUSE NEELEESWARAM MALAYATOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM -, PIN - 683587 BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV V.VINAY M.S.ANEER PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH ANILKUMAR C.R. K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
## **OTHER PRESENT:**
SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.02.2024, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..895/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
7
Bail Appl. Nos.895/2024, 922/2024, 924/2024, 925/2024, 927/2024, 928/2024
## **C.S.DIAS,J**
## **====================== Bail Application Nos.895, 922, 924, 925, 927 and 928 of 2024**
**-----------------------------------**
## **Dated this the 9[th] day of February, 2024**
## **COMMON ORDER**
The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 1[st] accused in Crime Nos.2608/2023, 2689/2023, 28/2024, 2688/2023, 29/2024 and 2821/2024 of the Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against the accused (three in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs.406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner's arrest was recorded in the above crimes on 17.12.2023.
2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: the accused with an intention to obtain unlawful gain from
the informants, received amounts as tuition fees from
Bail Appl. Nos.895/2024, 922/2024, 924/2024, 925/2024, 927/2024, 928/2024
8
them promising to arrange free admission in a course
named AUSBUILDING IN NURSING in Germany through an establishment named ABRO-AID Immigration Service. Although the accused received the amounts from the informants, they failed to provide admission for the informants. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.
3. Heard; Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V., Smt.Seetha S. and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutors.
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 crimes. The petitioner has no mens rea to cheat the informants. The petitioner had arranged a
Bail Appl. Nos.895/2024, 922/2024, 924/2024, 925/2024, 927/2024, 928/2024
**==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==**
course for students to study the German language. But, the faculty who was supposed to teach the students, left the services of the institution and, therefore, the course could not be completed. The petitioner was arrested in Crime No.2454/2023 by the very same police station. In that case, the petitioner has already been released on statutory bail. The petitioner has all through out been in judicial custody. The investigation in the crimes have been completed and recoveries have been effected. The petitioner's formal arrest was recorded in these cases on 17.12.2023, i.e., much later to his original arrest. Therefore, as the petitioner has been in judicial custody for more than the stipulated period of 60 days, the petitioner may be released on bail. The petitioner is willing to co-operate with the investigation and abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this
10
Bail Appl. Nos.895/2024, 922/2024, 924/2024, 925/2024, 927/2024, 928/2024
Court. Hence, the applications may be allowed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutors opposed the applications. They submitted that in addition to the above six crimes there is also Crime No.2454/2023, wherein the petitioner was originally arrested. The petitioner has cheated the innocent defacto complainants by siphoning of their money. The investigation in the case is not complete. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him tampering with the evidence and also fleeing from justice. Hence, the applications may be dismissed.
6. On an analysis of the materials placed on record, it is undisputed that the petitioner was arrested in Crime No.2454/2023 by the very same Investigating Officer. In that crime, the petitioner was released on statutory bail after the completion of 60 days. In fact, the petitioner's
Bail Appl. Nos.895/2024, 922/2024, 924/2024, 925/2024, 927/2024, 928/2024
11
arrest was recorded by the very same Investigating Officer, subsequently on 17.12.2023 while he was in custody in Crime No.2454/2023. Therefore, the petitioner has been in custody for the last more than 60 days. The maximum punishment that can be imposed as against the petitioner for the offences alleged against him is ten years. Therefore, the time period for statutory bail is also 60 days.
7. It is well settled that the antecedents of a person shall be the sole criteria to deny bail to the accused.
8. 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 a punitive and it would be improper on the
12
Bail Appl. Nos.895/2024, 922/2024, 924/2024, 925/2024, 927/2024, 928/2024
part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct.
9. In **Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.,** [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is a 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.
10. Subsequently, in **State of Kerala v. Raneef,** [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has again held 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
Bail Appl. Nos.895/2024, 922/2024, 924/2024, 925/2024, 927/2024, 928/2024
**==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==**
Article 21 of the Constitution.
11. On a consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar especially taking into account the fact that the petitioner's arrest was recorded on 17.12.2023 and that he has already been enlarged on statutory bail in the first crime by the very same Police Station, i.e., Crime No.2454/2023, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and that the recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow these bail applications.
In the result, the applications are allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing bonds for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) in all the cases with two solvent sureties each for
Bail Appl. Nos.895/2024, 922/2024, 924/2024, 925/2024, 927/2024, 928/2024
14
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 Tuesday and 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 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;
Bail Appl. Nos.895/2024, 922/2024, 924/2024, 925/2024, 927/2024, 928/2024
15
(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) The petitioner shall furnish his present address and permanent address, and his mobile phone number to the court below and the Investigating Officer;
(vi) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Ernakulam without prior permission of the jurisdictional court.
(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.
Bail Appl. Nos.895/2024, 922/2024, 924/2024, 925/2024, 927/2024, 928/2024
**==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==**
(viii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court
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].
**C.S.DIAS JUDGE**
rkc/09.02.24
Bail Appl. Nos.895/2024, 922/2024, 924/2024, 925/2024, 927/2024, 928/2024
17
## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 922/2024**
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 ORDER DATED 22-01-2024 IN BAIL APPL.115/2024 ON HIGH COURT
Bail Appl. Nos.895/2024, 922/2024, 924/2024, 925/2024, 927/2024, 928/2024
18
## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 924/2024**
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO 146/2024
Bail Appl. Nos.895/2024, 922/2024, 924/2024, 925/2024, 927/2024, 928/2024
19
## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 925/2024**
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 ORDER DATED 22-01-2024 IN BAIL APPL.115/2024 ON HIGH COURT
Bail Appl. Nos.895/2024, 922/2024, 924/2024, 925/2024, 927/2024, 928/2024
**==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==**
## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 927/2024**
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO 145/2024
Bail Appl. Nos.895/2024, 922/2024, 924/2024, 925/2024, 927/2024, 928/2024
**==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==**
## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 928/2024**
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-I COPY OF THE ORDER IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MAY BE MARKED AS ANNEXURE I.
Bail Appl. Nos.895/2024, 922/2024, 924/2024, 925/2024, 927/2024, 928/2024
22
## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 895/2024**
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 ORDER DATED 22-01-2024 IN BAIL APPL.113/2024 ON HIGH COURT