Jeeja Bhai Kannan & 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 5[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 1372 OF 2024`** ``` CRIME NO.885/2023 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.02.2024 IN CMP NO.642 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PATTAMBI ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 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 BENHUR JOSEPH 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 S/O. SURYANARAYANA, PROPRIETOR,`** ``` S.S. ENTERPRISES, GANGAMA TEMPLE STREET, Y.S.R. KADAPPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, PRODDATUR, PIN – 500020 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1372 OF 2024 ``` ``` ( 3RD RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS INTERVENOR AS PER ORDER DATED 01.03.2024 IN CRL.M.A. NO.1/2024 ) 4SENTHIL KUMAR ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED ) S/O. MUTHUSWAMY, PARTNER, FAIR AND FORTUNE VENTURES, RESIDING AT 4/5, GANESAPURAM, 3RD STREET, SAMUNDIPURAM 4TH CROSS, TIRUPPUR. ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED ) ``` ``` BY ADVS. SMT SEETHA S. - SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR P.R.VENKATESH LAKSHMI MEENAKSHI P.R. ASHA P.KURIAKOSE ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 3 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1372 OF 2024 ``` **C.S.DIAS, J. -------------------------------------------------------B.A. No. 1372 OF 2024 ------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 5[th] day of March, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is 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 ``` 4 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1372 OF 2024 ``` sugar factory named M/s. NSL Sugars Limited at Gauri Bidannur in the State of Karnataka. The accused, in 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. ``` 5 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1372 OF 2024`** 3. Heard; Sri. Johnson Manayani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri. P. R. Venkatesh, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant/ intervenor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that, petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. A reading of Annexure A1 FIR would substantiate that the transaction is purely civil in nature. In any case, the predicate offence under Section 420 IPC will not be attracted. The petitioners are in judicial custody since 08.02.2024. The investigation in the case is practically complete and the recovery has been effected. The petitioners’ further detention is unnecessary. Moreover, the first petitioner is a lady and the second petitioner, husband of the first accused, is a cardiac patient. If the petitioners’ ``` 6 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1372 OF 2024 ``` detention is continued, it will cause severe hardship to them. Hence, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report. It is, inter alia, contended that, the first accused concern and the M/s.NSL Sugars Limited had entered into an agreement on 08.07.2023. As per the said agreement, the accused had to pay a total consideration of Rs.17/- crore to the sugar factory for purchase of the scrap. The first accused had to pay 25% of the consideration within seven days as the first installment. However, the first accused only issued a cheque for Rs.4,25,000/-, which also got dishourned. Consequently, the sugar factory rescinded the agreement on 13.01.2023. It is after the termination of the contract, that the accused had consciously and ``` 7 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1372 OF 2024`** dishonestly entered into an agreement with the defacto complainant on 21.01.2023, knowing fully well that they could no longer supply the scrap machinery to the defacto complainant. Yet, they received the consideration of Rs.3,51,00,000/-, and squandered the money. After the petitioners were arrested, they were taken in Police custody on 13.02.2024. Their confession statements have been recorded, wherein they have admitted to the transactions and their guilt. The accused have purchased premium cars and a house worth Rs.1/crore. Several bank transactions are yet to be ascertained and incriminating materials are to be recovered. The investigation in the case is only at its nascent stage. If the petitioners are released on bail, it would hamper with the proper and full investigation in the crime. Due to the non co-operation of the petitioners, the investigation has not progressed. Furthermore, if the petitioners are released on bail, it would send a wrong ``` 8 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1372 OF 2024`** message to the society. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for the intervenor also opposed the application. He reiterated the contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor. In addition to the same, he drew the attention of this Court to Annexure 1 bank statement to establish that the entire consideration was transferred to the accounts of the accused. He also submitted that the accused had issued cheques towards the repayment of the consideration, which were also dishonoured. He contended that the petitioners are influential persons and habitual offenders. Therefore, if they are released on bail, they would intimidate the witnesses and sabotage the investigation. Hence, 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 ``` 9 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1372 OF 2024`** allegation is that the accused had entered into 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 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 **Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr.** [(2010) 14 SCC 496], the ``` 10 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1372 OF 2024 ``` ## Honourable Supreme Court has observed as follows: “9. …...... It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: - i. whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; - ii. nature and gravity of the accusation: iii. severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; - iv. danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; - v. character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; - vi. likelihood of the offence being repeated; vii. reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” 9. Subsequently, in **Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav and another** [(2005) 2 SCC 42], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, while considering a bail application, a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate ``` 11 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1372 OF 2024`** documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken. Nonetheless, the nature of the accusation, the severity of the punishment, the reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with the evidence or apprehension of threat to the complainant and prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge should be looked into. It is also explicitly observed that the mere fact that the accused has undergone a certain period of incarceration or that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future by itself would not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail, especially when the gravity of the offence is severe, and there is an allegation of tampering with the evidence by the accused. 10. In **Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar** [(2020) 2 SCC 118], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus: “12. The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous ``` 12 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1372 OF 2024 ``` factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important. No straitjacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused. That is a matter for trial. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused subserves the purpose of the criminal justice system. Where bail has been granted by a lower court, an appellate court must be slow to interfere and ought to be guided by the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail.” ## 11. It is also worth recollecting the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr** [(2012) 9 SCC 446] in the following lines: “30. We may usefully state that when the citizens are scared to lead a peaceful life and this kind of offences usher in an impediment in establishment of orderly society, the duty of the court becomes more pronounced and the burden is heavy. There should ``` 13 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1372 OF 2024 ``` have been proper analysis of the criminal antecedents. Needless to say, imposition of conditions is subsequent to the order admitting an accused to bail. The question should be posed whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter issue of imposing conditions would arise. We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighed. They are to be weighed in the scale of collective cry and desire. The societal concern has to be kept in view in juxtaposition of individual liberty. Regard being had to the said parameter we are inclined to think that the social concern in the case at hand deserves to be given priority over lifting the restriction on liberty of the accused.” 12. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially the findings rendered above, and on comprehending the nature, seriousness and gravity of the economic offence alleged against the petitioners, the potential severity of the punishment that is likely to be imposed on them, and the reasonable apprehension projected by the ``` 14 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1372 OF 2024 ``` prosecution that the petitioners may tamper with the evidence and intimidate the witnesses, I am not satisfied that the petitioners are to be released on bail at this stage, since it would have a deleterious impact on the society and justice would be thwarted. Hence, I hold that the application is only liable to be rejected. Resultantly, the application is dismissed. **Sd/C.S. DIAS JUDGE** BR ``` 15 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1372 OF 2024 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1372/2024`** |**`PETITIONER’S`**|**`ANNEXURES`**| |---|---| |**`Annexure.A1`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DT 30.9.2023 IN`**| ||**`CRIME NO.885/2023 OF 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`**| |**`Annexure.A3`**|**`THE 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 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN`**| ||**`CMP.642/2024DATED 13-2-2024 OF THE`**| ||**`JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,`**| ||**`PATTAMBI`**| |**`Annexure.A6`**|**`THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORTS`**| ||**`ISSUED BY THE AMRUTHA INSTITUTE OF`**| ||**`MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTER`**| |**`RESPONDENT’S`**|**`ANNEXURES`**| |**`Annexure A7`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 0885/2023`**| ||**`PATTAMBI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD`**| |**`Annexure A8`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS`**| ||**`HON'BLE COURT IN BA NO. 8896/2023 DATED`**| ||**`8.11.2023`**| |**`Annexure A9`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APEX COURT`**| ||**`IN SLP (CRL) NO. 15491/2023 DATED`**| ||**`5.12.2023`**| |**`Annexure R1`**|**`THE DETAILS OF THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE`**| ||**`PETITIONER UNDER BANK STATEMENTS`**| |**`Annexure R2`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT`**| ||**`LODGED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF`**| ||**`POLICE, TIRUPPUR DATED 9.2.2023`**| |**`Annexure R3`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE FIR LODGED ON 11.3.2023`**| |**`Annexure R4`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE W.P.(CRL.) NO. 193/2023`**|