Ajin A Jabbar v. State of Kerala

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ``` PRESENT ``` ## `THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS` ``` MONDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ## `BAIL APPL. NO. 2320 OF 2024` ``` CRIME NO.699/2024 OF INFOPARK POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` AJIN A JABBAR, AGED 18 YEARS S/O JABBAR, R/O, NANGICHITHODUKAYIL, RAROTH, KOZHIKODE., PIN – 673573 ``` ``` BY ADVS.NAVANEETH.N.NATH GAUTHAM KRISHNA E.J. ABHIRAMI S. ``` ## `RESPONDENT:` ``` 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 08.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` _B.A.No.2320/2024_ _-:2:-_ _Dated this the 8[th] day of April, 2024_ ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.699/2024 of Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860(‘IPC’, for short) and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The petitioner was arrested on 10.03.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: the accused had induced the de-facto complainant to install the IndusInd Bank Credit Card application on his mobile phone. Immediately, on the de-facto complainant installing the application the accused withdraw money from his account. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. _B.A.No.2320/2024_ _-:3:-_ 3. Heard; Sri. Navaneeth.N.Nath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C. S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. The offence under Section 420 of the IPC will not be attracted. In any given case, the petitioner, who is a 19 year old boy, has been in judicial custody since 10.03.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and recovery has been effected. Moreover, as per the report filed by the Investigating Officer, the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation is in progress. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is _B.A.No.2320/2024_ _-:4:-_ every likelihood of him tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that he made a phone call to the de-facto complainant and convinced him to install the IndusInd Bank’s Credit Card application on his mobile phone to avoid annual credit card fees. Immediately after the de-facto complainant installed the application, the accused withdrew an amount of Rs.1,59,900/- from the de-facto complainant’s bank account. 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. _B.A.No.2320/2024_ _-:5:-_ 8. 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. 9. 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 Article 21 of the Constitution. 10. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially on _B.A.No.2320/2024_ ## _-:6:-_ considering the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents as of date, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 10.03.2024, that the investigation in the case has progressed and recovery has been effected, I am of the view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. 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.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 Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is filed; - (ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any _B.A.No.2320/2024_ _-:7:-_ 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 the same, in accordance with law. - (vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. _B.A.No.2320/2024_ _-:8:-_ - (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 Anr.** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/08.04.24 //True copy// P.A. To Judge