Jaisal v. State of Kerala

_B.A.No.5935/2024_ _-:1:-_ **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2024:KER:59525 ``` ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 5935 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.14/2024 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, ``` ``` THRISSUR ``` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` JAISAL, AGED 39 YEARS S/O. HAMSAKOYA, KUTTIYACHANTEPURAKKAL HOUSE, AVIL BEACH, PARAPPANANGADI P.O., NEDUVA,MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676319 ``` ``` BY ADV C.K.SREEJITH ``` ## `RESPONDENT:` ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 ``` ``` PP SMT PUSHPALATHA M. K. ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` _B.A.No.5935/2024_ _-:2:-_ **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2024:KER:59525 ``` _Dated this the 7[th] day of August, 2024_ ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the sixth accused in Crime No.14/2024 of the Cyber Crime Police Station, Thrissur, which is registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.06.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that; the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, between the period from 04.02.2024 to 07.02.2024, induced the de-facto complainant, on the false promise that they would give him an online job, and good profit, made him transfer Rs.4,73,400/- by six transactions to _B.A.No.5935/2024_ ## _-:3:-_ **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2024:KER:59525 ``` the various bank accounts of the accused. But, the accused only paid Rs.3,850/- as profit. Thereafter, the accused did not pay any profit or return the capital. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. C.K.Sreejith, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Pushpalatha M.K., the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. There is no material to substantiate that the petitioner has received any money from the de-facto complainant. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 52 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and recovery has been effected. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the _B.A.No.5935/2024_ _-:4:-_ **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2024:KER:59525 ``` bail application. She submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. She also contended that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents, since he is involved in another crime of a similar nature. If the petitioner is let off on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing a similar offence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with the other accused, had induced the de-facto complainant to invest money with them on the assurance of giving him profit. However, the accused did not pay any profit or return the capital. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 52 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 _B.A.No.5935/2024_ _-:5:-_ **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2024:KER:59525 ``` 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 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 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. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly on considering _B.A.No.5935/2024_ ## _-:6:-_ **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2024:KER:59525 ``` the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 52 days, the investigation in the case is complete, and recovery has been effected, I am of the firm view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application, but subject to stringent conditions. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand 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 laid. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; ``` 2024:KER:59525 ``` ## _B.A.No.5935/2024_ ## _-:7:-_ **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** - (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; - (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 _B.A.No.5935/2024_ _-:8:-_ **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2024:KER:59525 ``` conditions shall be filed and entertained before 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 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]. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/07.08.24 //True copy// P.A. To Judge