Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail granted (anticipatory bail) with specified...

Jayaprakash, Remadevi and Jithin v State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:B.A. No. 7027 of 2014

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • V.K. Mohanan
Judgment Date
2014-09-30
Court Decision / Holding
The petition is allowed; anticipatory bail is granted to petitioners 1 to 3 on execution of bonds of Rs. 50,000 each with two solvent sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, subject to conditions: (i) third accused shall report before the Investigating Officer on alternate Sundays between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m.; (ii) petitioners 1 and 2 shall report as required by the police; (iii) third accused shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional Magistrate and may apply for release of passport later if warranted by merit (guided by Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala); (iv) petitioners shall not tamper with evidence; (v) petitioners shall not interfere with the investigation.
Final Disposition
Bail granted (anticipatory bail) with specified conditions

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Jayaprakash
  • Remadevi
  • Jithin

Respondents

  • State of Kerala rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. B. Pramod

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. C.R. Jayaprakash, Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

Jayaprakash, Remadevi and Jithin, accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 217/2014 of Alappuzha North Police Station, moved anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners promised employment as an Administrative Assistant at the Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha to the de facto complainant and that the complainant’s husband paid Rs. 2,80,000 to accused No. 3, with the money reportedly routed through bank accounts. The case frames a ‘cheating’ scenario under Sec. 420 read with Sec. 34 IPC, since no job was provided after the funds were given. The petitioners’ counsel contends that the de facto complainant and her husband are the real culprits, alleging a visa-for-work scheme and repayment of the amount; they emphasize that the entire money transaction occurred via bank accounts, which would reveal the truth and reduce the need for custodial interrogation. The Public Prosecutor maintains that the accused induced payment by promising a job, constituting an offense under Sec. 420 r/w Sec. 34 IPC. On balance, the court notes that even if the allegations are assumed true, bank records could suffice for investigation, and grants anticipatory bail with strict conditions, including reporting obligations, bond/sureties, passport surrender for the third accused, and non-interference with investigations. A merit-based passport-release principle from Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala is cited. The order ultimately seeks to balance investigation efficacy with protection from harassment.

Provisions of Law Cited

Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.Sec. 420 read with Sec. 34 IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the de facto complainant and her husband are the real culprits; the visa-for-work scheme was promised but not fulfilled, and the money transfer happened through the accounts of the accused and the complainants. They argued that the entire transaction is bank-recorded, making custodial interrogation unnecessary. They urged anticipatory bail with safeguards, asserting no imminent danger of tampering with evidence or fleeing and emphasizing the potential to recover funds. They also argued for the court’s consideration of releasing the third accused’s passport if warranted by merit, referencing the need for flexibility under existing precedent.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor contended that the petitioners collected money by promising a job, with the amount paid through the bank accounts of the complainant and her husband. This shows deceit and constitutes offenses under Sec. 420 read with Sec. 34 IPC. The prosecution asserted that custodial interrogation may be necessary for investigation, and that bail should be refused or tightly conditioned to prevent interference with evidence and witnesses and to ensure presence for future proceedings.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala2009 (2) KLT 712PositiveThe court cites Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala to justify the possibility of passport release under bail considerations, even where a passport surrender is imposed, indicating merit-based, conditional flexibility.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Jayaprakash, Remadevi and Jithin v State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/8TH ASWINA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 7027 of 2014 () ------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP 457/2014 of DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP 1528/2014 of ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT - III, ALAPPUZHA CRIME NO. 217/2014 OF ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3: ----------------------------------------- 1. JAYAPRAKASH AGED 56 YEARS S/O. THANKAPPAN, CHITTEZHATHU HOUSE, SOUTH ARYAD ALAPPUZHA. 2. REMADEVI AGED 46 YEARS W/O. JAYAPRAKASH, CHITTEZHATHU HOUSE, SOUTH ARYAD ALAPPUZHA. 3. JITHIN S/O. JAYAPRAKASH, CHITTEZHATHU HOUSE, SOUTH ARYAD ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.R. JAYAPRAKASH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## V.K. MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A. No. 7027 of 2014 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 30[th] day of September, 2014 ## ORDER The petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 217 of 2014 of Alappuzha Police Station, apprehends arrest in the above crime. Therefore, they preferred this application for anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. 2. The prosecution allegation is that the first petitioner/accused promising job as “Administrative Assistant” in the Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha to the de facto complainant and accepting the above offer, the husband of the de facto complainant gave a sum of Rs. 2 B.A. No. 7027 of 2014 2,80,000/- to the 3rd accused who is the son of accused Nos. 1 and 2. But, no job was arranged as offered by them . So, according to the prosecution, accused Nos. 1 to 3 have committed offences punishable under Section 420 read with Sec. 34 Indian Penal Code. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted a different story and pointed out that the de facto complainant and her husband are the real culprits. According to him, the husband of the de facto complainant offered employment visa for the 3rd petitioner/accused in abroad and towards the said purpose, petitioners gave a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs to the husband of the de facto complainant. But they failed to 3 B.A. No. 7027 of 2014 arrange the job visa as offered by them. Consequently, in mediation, they agreed to re-pay the amount and accordingly, the husband of the de facto complainant paid a sum of Rs. 2,80,000/- to the accused herein through the account of accused No.3. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the story now put forward by the de facto complainant is unbelievable and the petitioners are falsely implicated in the above crime. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners had collected money from the de facto complainant and her husband, offering job to the de facto complainant and the amount was paid to the accused through the bank account of the de facto complainant and her husband. After the receipt of the money, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, the 4 B.A. No. 7027 of 2014 accused resiled from their promise and thereby they have committed offences punishable under Sec. 420 read with Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code. 5. I have carefully considered the avements made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. Even if the prosecution allegation against the petitioners are admitted as correct, though the same are not believable for a prudent mind, as per the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor the entire money transaction between the accused and the de facto complainant and her husband were taken place through the bank accounts of the accused as well as the de facto complainant and her husband. If that be so, according to me, in order to complete the investigation, custodial 5 B.A. No. 7027 of 2014 interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary since, particularly, when the bank records are readily available which would show the money transaction. So, according to me, this petition can be allowed, however, on imposing stringent conditions. In the result, this petition is allowed, and accordingly, there will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners in Crime No.217/2014 of Alappuzha North Police Station, they shall be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer on the following further conditions: - i) The 3[rd] petitioner/third accused shall report before the Investigating Officer on alternate Sundays between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. ii) Petitioners 1 and 2 shall report before the 6 B.A. No. 7027 of 2014 Investigating Officer as and when required by the police. iii) _The 3[rd] petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the jurisdictional Magistrate at the time of executing the bail bond and if he is not the passport holder, he will file an affidavit to that effect in the said Court. If the petitioner requires his passport, he can approach the concerned court for the release of the same and in case, such an application is filed, the trial Court or the jurisdictional Magistrate, as the case may be, is free to consider the same on merit and to pass appropriate orders, guided by the decision of this Court reported in_ _**Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala [2009 (2) KLT 712],** notwithstanding the above condition imposed by this Court._ iv) Petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence and try to influence any witnesses. v) Petitioners shall not interfere with the investigation. _Dated this the 30[th] day of September, 2014._ Sd/- V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE. ## **Ani/** **/true copy/** **P.S. To Judge** B.A. No. 7027 of 2014 7