Amit, Deepak and Sangam v. State of Kerala

1 BA No.1972 of 2024 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 1972 OF 2024 CRIME NO.4/2023 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM RURAL, Ernakulam ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1AMIT,AGED 21 YEARS,S/O DAYANAND AURA, RESIDING AT HAINSAR BAZAR, SANT KABIR NAGAR, UTTAR PRADESH, PIN - 272175 2DEEPAK,AGED 30 YEARS,S/O HARIRAM, 021, MATHEPUR, UTTAR PRADESH, PIN - 245207 3SANGAM AGED 18 YEARS S/O RAM PRIT, SANT KABIR NAGAR, AURADAND, UTTAR PRADESH, PIN - 272175 BY ADVS. S.JUSTUS M.N.VEDARAJ ``` ## **`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 19.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 BA No.1972 of 2024 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** ## **======================** ## **BA No.1972 of 2024** ## **----------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of March, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.4/2023 of the Cyber Crime Police Station, Aluva, registered against the accused (eight in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sec.420 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.66(D) of the Information Technology Act. The petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 7.12.2023. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: the accused in furtherance of their common intention to cheat the Managing Director of the company in which the de facto complainant was working impersonated themselves as the 3 BA No.1972 of 2024 officials of the company and sent messages to the de facto complainant and demanded him to transfer money to their accounts. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.44,47,905/- was transferred to the account of the accused. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.S.Justus, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Seetha.S, the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. There is no material to implicate them in the crime. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Sec.420 of the IPC to deny bail to the petitioners. Notwithstanding the above contentions, the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 7.12.2023. Even though the investigation in the case is complete, the final report has not been laid. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to statutory 4 BA No.1972 of 2024 bail as contemplated under the proviso to sub-sec.(2) of Sec.167 of the Code. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the petitioners have committed a grave economic offence. The investigation is still in progress. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 7.12.2023, the offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable for a period of less than ten years and the final report has not been laid. 6. On a consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, it is evident that the offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable for a period of less than ten years. Even though the petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 7.12.2023, the final report has not been laid. Hence, I am of 5 BA No.1972 of 2024 the definite view that the petitioners are entitled to be released on statutory bail since it is their indefeasible right under Section 167(2) of the Code. ## 7. Sec.167 of the Code reads thus: ## **167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twentyfour hours.** (1)Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the officer-in-charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate. (2)The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction : ## PROVIDED that - [(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding, - (i)ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years; 6 BA No.1972 of 2024 (ii)sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;] (b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention of the accused in custody of the police under this Section unless the accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently every time till the accused remains in the custody of the police, but the Magistrate may extend further detention in judicial custody on production of the accused either in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage.] (c)no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police. 8. The Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in **Sanjay Dutt v.State through C.B.I., Bombay** [(1994) 5 SCC 410] after laying down the principles, recorded its conclusions, of which conclusion 53 (2) (b) is relevant for ## this case, which is reproduced below: "53.(2)(b) The "indefeasible right" of the accused to be released on bail in accordance with Section 20(4)(bb) of the TADA Act read with Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in default of completion of the investigation and filing of the challan within the time allowed, as held in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur is a right which enures to, and is enforceable by the accused only from the time of default till the filing of the challan and it does not survive or remain enforceable on the challan being filed. If the accused applies for bail under this provision on expiry of the period of 180 days or the extended period, as the case may be, then he has to be released on 7 BA No.1972 of 2024 bail forthwith. The accused, so released on bail may be arrested and committed to custody according to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The right of the accused to be released on bail after filing of the challan, notwithstanding the default in filing it within the time allowed, is governed from the time of filing of the challan only by the provisions relating to the grant of bail applicable at that stage." 9. A three-Judge Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in **Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra** [(2001) 5 SCC 453], reiterated the legal proposition in **Sanjay** **Dutt v. State** through C.B.I., Bombay (supra). In paragraph 13 ## (3) it was opined thus: " 13. x x x x x x (3) On the expiry of the said period of 90 days or 60 days, as the case may be, an indefeasible right accrues in favour of the accused for being released on bail on account of default by the investigating agency in the completion of the investigation within the period prescribed and the accused is entitled to be released on bail, if he is prepared to and furnishes the bail as directed by the Magistrate.” (emphasis added) 10. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them 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 8 BA No.1972 of 2024 having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) The petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; (iii) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are on bail; (iv) 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; 9 BA No.1972 of 2024 (v) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed and entertained by the court below. (vi) 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 petitioners even while the petitioners 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/- sks/19.3.2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**