Jeeja Bhai Kannan and K. C. Kannan v. State of Kerala and Others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 2322 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.885/2023 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP NO.642 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , PATTAMBI ``` ``` PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2: ``` - **`1 JEEJA BHAI KANNAN AGED 47 YEARS W/O. KANNAN, RESIDING AT 4/4416, THEKKEMURI, MELE PATTAMBI POST, PERINTHALMANNA ROAD, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679703`** - **`2 K.C.KANNAN AGED 59 YEARS`** ``` S/O. G.CHANDRASEKHARA KARNAVAR, RESIDING AT 4/4416, THEKKEMURI, MELE PATTAMBI POST, PERINTHALMANNA ROAD, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679703 ``` ``` BY ADVS. JOHNSON MANAYANI JEEVAN MATHEW MANAYANI ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER , PATTAMBI POLICE STATION, PATTAMBI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679303`** - **`3 KONDALA MADHUSUDHAN REDDY`** - **`, PROPRIETOR, S.S. ENTERPRISES, GANGAMA TEMPLE STREET, Y.S.R. KADAPPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH PRODDATUR, PIN - 500020`** ``` BY ADVS. P.R.VENKATESH ASHA P.KURIAKOSE(K/000784/1998) LAKSHMI MEENAKSHI P.R.(K/003518/2022) ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **B.A. No.2322 of 2024** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. No.2322 of 2024** ``` 3 ``` ## **Dated this the 26[th] day of March, 2024** ## **O R D E R** This is the second application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.885/2023 of the Pattambi Police Station, Palakkad registered against the accused (four in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 415, 416, 417, 419, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested on 08.02.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: the first accused proprietorship concern named M/s. Jeeja Products and Agencies along with the accused 2 to 4 had entered into an agreement with the defacto complainant, promising to supply the scrap machinery of the defunct sugar factory named M/s. NSL Sugars Limited at Gauri Bidannur in the State of Karnataka. The accused, in **B.A. No.2322 of 2024** ``` 4 ``` furtherance of their common intention, convinced the defacto complainant that the accused 1 and 2 had acquired the ownership of the scrap materials of the sugar factory. Prior to the execution of the agreement, the defacto complainant and accused had met in Bangalore and arrived at an oral agreement regarding the consideration for the transaction. Pursuant to the consensus ad idem arrived at between the parties, they executed an agreement on 21.01.2023. As per the terms in the agreement, the defacto complainant transferred an amount of Rs.3,51,00,000/- (Rupees three crore and fifty one lakh only) between 28.12.2022 to 25.01.2023, by way of cheques and bank transfer to the accused. But, the accused failed to supply the scrap machinery or return the consideration. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. Johnson Manayani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Seetha S., the **B.A. No.2322 of 2024** ``` 5 ``` learned Public Prosecutor and Sri. P. R. Venkatesh, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. A reading of Annexure A1 FIR would substantiate that the transactions between the petitioners and the third respondent are purely civil in nature. Therefore, the offence under Section 420 will not be attracted. In any given case, the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 08.02.2024, which is 47 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and the recoveries have been effected. Therefore, the petitioners’ further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation in the case is still in progress. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for **B.A. No.2322 of 2024** ``` 6 ``` the last 47 days, the investigation in the case, so far as the petitioners are concerned, is practically complete, and recoveries have been effected. 6. The learned counsel for the third respondent also opposed the application. He submitted that if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, it would sabotage the investigation. He prayed that the application may be dismissed. 7. On a scrutiny of the materials placed on record, it can be deciphered that the crux of the prosecution allegation is that the accused had entered into an agreement with the defacto complainant promising to supply the scrap machinery of the sugar factory. Consequently, the accused received Rs.3,51,00,000/from the defacto complainant. The fact that the accused had entered into an agreement with the sugar factory on 08.07.2023, but the agreement was terminated on 13.01.2022, due to non-compliance of the covenants in **B.A. No.2322 of 2024** ``` 7 ``` the agreement and, thereafter, they consciously entered into the present agreement with the defacto complainant on 21.01.2023 and received a consideration of Rs.3,51,00,000/- on the assurance that they would supply the scrap machinery of the sugar company, prima facie establishes the offences attributed against the accused. 8. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,** [2012 1 SCC 40], the2024:KER:11608 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. 9. In **Dataram Singh v. State of U.P** ., [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is a rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. Even though the grant of bail is entirely the **B.A. No.2322 of 2024** ``` 8 ``` 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. 10. Subsequently, in **State of Kerala v. Raneef** , [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has again held 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. 11. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, especially considering the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 08.02.2024, that the investigation in the case, so far as the petitioners are concerned, is practically complete, and that the recoveries have been effected, I ``` 9 ``` ## **B.A. No.2322 of 2024** am of the definite view that the petitioners’ further detention is not necessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application, but subject to stringent conditions. 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) 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 filed. 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 ``` 10 ``` ## **B.A. No.2322 of 2024** him 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) 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 an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; (v) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdictional limits of the Court of Session, Palakkad, without previous permission of the Jurisdictional Court. - (vi) In case of violation of any of the conditions - mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be ``` 11 ``` ## **B.A. No.2322 of 2024** empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. (vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. (viii) 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 as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].** ``` Sd/- ``` mtk/26.03.24 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** **B.A. No.2322 of 2024** ``` 12 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2322/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` ANNEXURE.A1 ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DT 30.9.2023 IN CRIME NO.885/2023 OF THE PATTAMBI POLICE STATION ``` ``` ANNEXURE.A2 ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT 21.1.2023 EXECUTED IN BETWEEN THE 1ST PETITIONER AND THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT, THE 3RD RESPONDENT ``` ``` ANNEXURE.A3THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN BA NO.8896/2023 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DT 8.11.2023 ``` - **`ANNEXURE.A4`** ``` THE COPY OF THE ORDER IN SLP (CRL) NO.15491/2023 DT 5.12.2023 ``` ``` ANNEXURE.A5 ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP.642/2024 DATED 13-2-2024 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PATTAMBI ``` ``` ANNEXURE.A6THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORTS ISSUED BY THE AMRUTHA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTER ``` ``` ANNEXURE.A7 ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN BA NO.1372 OF 2024 DT 5.3.2024 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA ```