Bail Applications Nos. 2892 of 2024 and 3453 of 2024 in Crime No. 528/2024, Ernakulam Central Police Station, Ernakulam

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 5TH VAISAKHA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 2892 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.528/2024 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2024 IN CMP NO.3761 OF 2024 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.12 AND 13:` ``` 1MOHAMMED RANEESH P, AGED 24 YEARS S/O MAMMED P., POOCHAKKANNI HOUSE, VELLERI, AREEKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN – 673639 2JABIR P.T. AGED 25 YEARS S/O UMMED P.T., PATTAKKAL THEKKETHODI HOUSE, KUNITHALAKKADAV, KUZHIMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN – 673641 ``` ``` BY ADVS.ADITHYA RAJEEV S.PARVATHI SAFA NAVAS ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 ``` ``` 2G.GOPINATHAN ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED ) MANKOOTATHIL HOUSE, DIWANS ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED) ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ## `SR PP SMT NEEMA T V` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.04.2024 ALONG WITH B.A. NO.3453/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` _B.A.Nos.2892&3453/2024_ _-:2:-_ ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 5TH VAISAKHA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3453 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.528/2024 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.04.2024 IN CRMC NO.1131 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PETITIONER/ACCUSED:` ``` SAFVAN.V AGED 28 YEARS S/O HAMSAKOYA, PACHAKKAPADANNA HOUSE, POTTEKADU, FEROKE.P.O, KARUVANTHURUTHY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673631 ``` ``` BY ADVS.T.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR C.H.ABDUL RASAC ``` ``` 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 25.04.2024 ALONG WITH B.A.NO.2892/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` _B.A.Nos.2892&3453/2024_ _-:3:-_ _Dated this the 25[th] day of April, 2024_ ## **C O M M O N O R D E R** The applications are filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused Nos.6, 12 & 13 in Crime No.528/2024 of the Ernakulam Central Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 & 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Since the two cases arise out of the same crime, they are consolidated, jointly heard, and are being disposed of by this common order. The sixth accused was arrested on 03.03.2024 and accused Nos.12 & 13 were arrested on 19.03.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, to cheat the de-facto complainant, impersonated themselves as Policemen attached to the Mumbai _B.A.Nos.2892&3453/2024_ _-:4:-_ Police and contacted the de-facto complainant through Skype. The accused informed the de-facto complainant that his Aadhar card was used to open a bank account in the Canara Bank, Mumbai branch, and his account was used for money laundering in a case related to Jet Airways. The accused threatened to arrest the de-facto complainant as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, they made him transfer an amount of Rs.29,91,000/- to the two accounts of the accused. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. Adithya Rajeev and Sri. T.P. Santhosh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri. C. S. Hrithwik and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutors. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusation levelled against them. A reading of the First Information Report would substantiate that none _B.A.Nos.2892&3453/2024_ _-:5:-_ of the offences would be attracted against the petitioners. In any given case, the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 50 days, the investigation in the case is complete, and recovery has been effected. Some of the accused have already been enlarged on bail. Hence, the petitioners may also be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutors opposed the applications. They contended that the investigation is in progress. They also stated that the Investigating Officer is ascertaining whether the petitioners have any criminal antecedents. If the petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood of them committing similar offences. Hence, the applications may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioners is that, they impersonated themselves as Mumbai Police and blackmailed the de-facto _B.A.Nos.2892&3453/2024_ _-:6:-_ complainant and made him pay an amount of Rs.29,91,000/- to them. The fact remains that the sixth accused has been in judicial custody for the last 52 days, and the accused Nos.12 & 13 have been in judicial custody for the last 36 days, the investigation in the case is complete, and recovery has been effected. 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. 8. In **Dataram Singh v. State of U.P** . [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is the rule and putting a person in jail is _B.A.Nos.2892&3453/2024_ _-:7:-_ 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. In **State of Kerala v. Raneef** [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has declared 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. In **Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar** [(1980) 1 SCC 81], the Honourable Supreme Court while dealing with a case of under trials, who suffered long incarceration, held that the procedure that keeps large number of people behind the bars without trial for long is unreasonable _B.A.Nos.2892&3453/2024_ _-:8:-_ and unfair, and is not in conformity with the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 11. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception is on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Once the charge sheet is filed, a strong case has to be made out for continuing a person in judicial custody. The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society. 12. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially on considering the fact that the sixth accused has been in judicial custody for the last 52 days and the accused Nos.12 & 13 have been in judicial custody for the last 36 days, the investigation in the case is complete, and recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioners’ further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail applications, but _B.A.Nos.2892&3453/2024_ _-:9:-_ ## subject to stringent conditions. In the result, the applications are allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each 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 petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. They shall also 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 _B.A.Nos.2892&3453/2024_ _-:10:-_ ## while they are on bail; - (iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passports, they shall file affidavits 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. - (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 petitioners even while the petitioners are on bail _B.A.Nos.2892&3453/2024_ _-:11:-_ 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/25.04.24 //True copy// P.A. To Judge