Jaanmoni Das v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Judgment Date: 2023-08-16
Court Decision / Holding: Bail application allowed with stringent conditions: the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days for interrogation; after interrogation, if arrest is proposed, release on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties; regular appearance before IO; cooperation and no inducement; no departure from Kerala without court permission; no commission of similar offences; biweekly appearances until the final report is filed; non-compliance permits cancellation of bail. The court also conditioned that the dispute should be settled within four months, failing which the bail can be canceled and the prosecution may move accordingly.
Final Disposition: Bail allowed with conditions as stated above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jaanmoni Das

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Remya Jacob
Jebin Jose

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Millu Dandapani

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, Maya M N

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Jaanmoni Das, is the accused in Crime No. 1540/2022 registered at Ernakulam Central Police Station, facing charges under Sections 406 and 420 IPC related to a scheme to start Janmonidas Bridal Studio on MG Road, Ernakulam. The scheme allegedly involved an investment of Rs 1 crore, with promises of profit and a 30% share to the defacto complainant, resulting in a cumulative amount of Rs 29,75,000 received between 19 January 2021 and 22 January 2021, followed by alleged cheating. The bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was argued after the prosecution maintained that a serious offence had been committed, while the petitioner claimed there was no criminal offence and that it was a civil dispute that could be settled. The petitioner’s counsel asserted readiness to settle the matter; Rs 4 lakh had already been paid to one victim and the balance would be paid. The Public Prosecutor and victims’ counsel opposed bail, highlighting large sums collected and misappropriated with no recovery yet. The court acknowledged the seriousness but signaled willingness to grant bail if the dispute is settled within four months, with a proviso that failure to settle allows cancellation of bail. The order imposes stringent conditions: appearance before the investigating officer (IO) within ten days, a bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties, ongoing cooperation, no inducement or leaving Kerala without court permission, and biweekly check-ins until final report. It also reiterates the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement to justify granting bail on terms.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Section 406 IPCSection 420 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant’s counsel submitted that no criminal offence has been made out and the transaction is civil in nature; the petitioner is willing to settle the dispute. It has already paid Rs 4,00,000 to one victim and intends to pay the balance. The emphasis was on the lack of a criminal offense and the possibility of settlement as a basis for granting bail.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, arguing that the offences are serious and the petitioner, a native of Assam, collected a large sum that has been misappropriated, with no recovery yet and therefore bail should be refused.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited to reinforce the proposition that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, supporting the grant of bail on proper conditions.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

BAIL APPL. NO. 911 OF 2023 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 25TH SRAVANA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 911 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER/S:** JAANMONI DAS AGED 36 YEARS D/O. SOURAV DAS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 3A, SAMUDRADARSHAN, MARINE DRIVE, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY ADV Millu Dandapani ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 ADDL.R2. REMYA JACOB AGED 36 YEARS W/O.NAVEEN NAIR, THEKKEVILA PUTHENVEEDU, POOYAPPALLI P.O., KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM, IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 31-012023. 3 JEBIN JOSE S/O JOSE , KOLATH HOUSE, THUDANGANAD P.O, MUTTOM, IDUKKI DISTRICT ( IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 IN THIS WRIT PETITION AS PER ORDER DATED 16.08.2023 IN CRL.M.A. 1/2023) BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT.MAYA M N BAIL APPL. NO. 911 OF 2023 2 S.Shanavas Khan Shahul Hameed Abdul Jaleel S.INDU(K/002856/1999) KALA G.NAMBIAR(K/515/2006) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT.MAYA M N THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 911 OF 2023 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **---------------------------------------** ## **B.A. No. 911 of 2023** **-------------------------------------Dated this the 16[th] day of August, 2023** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1540/2022 of Ernakulam Central Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Secs. 406 and 420 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner made the defacto complainant an offer to start 'Janmonidas Bridal Studio' at MG Road, Ernakulam with investment of BAIL APPL. NO. 911 OF 2023 4 Rs.1 crore and if the defacto complainant invests 30% of it, she will get good profit and received an amount of Rs.29,75,000/- between 19.01.2021 and 22.01.2021 and cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, this case is registered. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I also heard the counsel appearing for the victims in this case. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no criminal offence committed in this case. The counsel submitted that it is only a pure civil transaction and the petitioner is ready to settle the matter with the victims. It is also submitted that the petitioner already paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to one of the victims and the balance also will be paid. The counsel submitted that there is no criminal offence is made out and therefore, this BAIL APPL. NO. 911 OF 2023 5 Court may release the petitioner on bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner committed a serious offence and the petitioner is a native of Assam. The counsel appearing for the victims also opposed the bail application. The counsel submitted that huge amount is collected by the petitioner and the same is misappropriated and they have not received any amount. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents including Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegations against the petitioner is very serious. But, the main contention of the petitioner is that there is no criminal offence and there is some civil liability towards the victims. If that is the case, I think the bail application can be allowed on condition that the petitioner will settle the entire dispute within four months. If the BAIL APPL. NO. 911 OF 2023 6 dispute is not settled within four months, the victims or the Public Prosecutor is free to file a petition to cancel this bail. With that condition, this bail application can be allowed. Moreover, to protect the interest of the prosecution, the petitioner shall not leave Kerala without permission from the Jurisdictional Court. 7. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. 8. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that, the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870)** , after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception BAIL APPL. NO. 911 OF 2023 7 so as to ensure that, the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. 9. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: 1. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation; 2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned; 3. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The BAIL APPL. NO. 911 OF 2023 8 petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise 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; 4. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court; 5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected; 6. The petitioner shall not leave Kerala without permission from the Jurisdictional Court. 7. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer once in two weeks, till final report is filed. 8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the BAIL APPL. NO. 911 OF 2023 9 petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. **Sd/-** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SKS BAIL APPL. NO. 911 OF 2023 10 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 911/2023** PETITIONER ANNEXURES |AnnexureA1|THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN THE CRIME 1540| |---|---| ||OF 2022 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE| ||STATION| |AnnexureA2|THE TRUE EXCERPTS OF THE E MAIL| ||COMMUNICATION THE PETITIONER DID WITH THE| ||DEFACTO COMPLAINANT| |AnnexureA3|THE TRUE COPY OF THE INAUGURATION PHOTOS| ||OF THE BRIDAL STUDIO| |AnnexureA4|THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOS OF THE BRIDAL| ||STUDIO|