Jose Thomas v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1945** ## **BAIL APPL. NO. 1335 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.195/2024 OF TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:** **JOSE THOMAS, AGED 42 YEARS S/O THOMAS, VETTIKKATTIL HOUSE, FLAT NO:1, 29/401/1, DAMODAR APARTMENT, KUNNATH LANE, NEAR THIRUVAMBADY LANE PATTURAIKKAL DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE, PIN - 680001** **BY ADVS. N.K.MOHANLAL ANUPA ANNA JOSE KANDOTH JAYARAMAN S. DHANYA SUNNY ANN MILKA GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULM, PIN - 682031** **2 ASSISTANT POLICE COMMISSIONER, C-BRANCH, THRISSUR CITY, PIN - 680001** **BY ADVS. ANUPA ANNA JOSE KANDOTH JAYARAMAN S. DHANYA SUNNY ANN MILKA GEORGE** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR PP SMT NEEMA T.V.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2024 ALONG WITH B.A.NO.1442 OF 2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.Nos.1335, 1442, 1443, 1445 & 1448 of 2024 **2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 1442 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.196/2023 OF TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:** **JOSE THOMAS, AGED 42 YEARS S/O THOMAS, VETTIKKATTIL HOUSE, FLAT NO:1, 29/401/1, DAMODAR APARTMENT, KUNNATH LANE, NEAR THIRUVAMBADY LANE NEAR PATTURAIKKAL DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE, PIN - 680001** **BY ADV N.K.MOHANLAL** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031** **2 ASSISTANT POLICE COMMISSIONER, C-BRANCH, THRISSUR CITY, PIN - 680001** **BY ADVS. ANUPA ANNA JOSE KANDOTH JAYARAMAN S. DHANYA SUNNY ANN MILKA GEORGE** **SR PP SMT SEETHA S** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2024 ALONG WITH B.A.NO.1335 OF 2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.Nos.1335, 1442, 1443, 1445 & 1448 of 2024 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 1443 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.205/2023 OF TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:** **JOSE THOMAS, AGED 42 YEARS S/O THOMAS, VETTIKKATTIL HOUSE, FLAT NO:1, 29/401/1, DAMODAR APARTMENT, KUNNATH LANE, NEAR THIRUVAMBADY LANE NEAR PATTURAIKKAL DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE, PIN - 680001** **BY ADV N.K.MOHANLAL** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 ASSISTANT POLICE COMMISSIONER, C-BRANCH, THRISSUR CITY, PIN - 680001** **BY ADVS. ANUPA ANNA JOSE KANDOTH JAYARAMAN S. DHANYA SUNNY ANN MILKA GEORGE** **SR PP SMT SEETHA S.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2024 ALONG WITH B.A.NO.1335 OF 2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.Nos.1335, 1442, 1443, 1445 & 1448 of 2024 4 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 1445 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.206/2023 OF TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:** **JOSE THOMAS, AGED 42 YEARS S/O THOMAS, VETTIKKATTIL HOUSE, FLAT NO:1, 29/401/1, DAMODAR APARTMENT, KUNNATH LANE, NEAR THIRUVAMBADY LANE NEAR PATTURAIKKAL DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE, PIN - 680001** **BY ADV N.K.MOHANLAL** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 ASSISTANT POLICE COMMISSIONER, C-BRANCH, THRISSUR CITY, PIN - 680001** **BY ADVS. ANUPA ANNA JOSE KANDOTH JAYARAMAN S. DHANYA SUNNY ANN MILKA GEORGE SR. P.P. SMT. NEEMA T.V.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2024 ALONG WITH B.A.NO.1335 OF 2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.Nos.1335, 1442, 1443, 1445 & 1448 of 2024 5 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 1448 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.162/2023 OF TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:** **JOSE THOMAS, AGED 42 YEARS S/O THOMAS, VETTIKKATTIL HOUSE, FLAT NO:1, 29/401/1, DAMODAR APARTMENT, KUNNATH LANE, NEAR THIRUVAMBADY LANE NEAR PATTURAIKKAL DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE, PIN - 680001** **BY ADV N.K.MOHANLAL** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 ASSISTANT POLICE COMMISSIONER C-BRANCH, THRISSUR CITY, PIN - 680001** **BY ADVS. ANUPA ANNA JOSE KANDOTH JAYARAMAN S. DHANYA SUNNY ANN MILKA GEORGE** ## **SR.P.P. SMT.NEEMA T.V.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2024 ALONG WITH B.A.NO.1335 OF 2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.Nos.1335, 1442, 1443, 1445 & 1448 of 2024 6 ## **COMMON ORDER** [B.A.Nos.1335, 1442, 1443, 1445 & 1448 of 2024] The applications are filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the very same accused in different crime numbers of the Town East Police Station, Thrissur to release him on bail. 2. In B.A.No.1335/2024 the petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No.195/2024, in B.A.No.1442/2024 the petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No.196/2023, in B.A.No.1443/2024 the petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.205/2023, in B.A.No.1445/2024 the petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No.206/2023 and in B.A.No.1448/2024 the petitioner is the third accused in Crime No.162/2023, all of the Town East Police Station, Thrissur. The petitioner was arrested on 11.02.2024 in Crime No.195/2024 and his arrest was formally recorded in the other four cases on 14.02.2024. Since the petitioner is the same in all the five bail applications, the applications were consolidated, jointly heard and are being B.A.Nos.1335, 1442, 1443, 1445 & 1448 of 2024 7 disposed of by this common order. 3. The common case of the prosecution in the above five crimes is that: the accused 1 to 4 after hatching a conspiracy and in furtherance of their common intention to cheat the first informant, partner of Primaro Global Fincorp, Coimbatore, dishonestly induced him to pay Rs.1,21,25,000/- in crime No.162/203, Rs.2,00,00,000/- in Crime No.195/2023, Rs.1,00,00,000/- in Crime No.196/2023, Rs.1,94,00,000/- in Crime No.205/2023 & Rs.2,22,00,000/- in Crime No.206/2023 assuring him profits from various business ventures, including the distribution rights in films rights, forex investments, export business, real estate business etc. Despite receipt of the above amounts, the accused failed to pay any profit or return the capital. Thus, the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Heard; Sri.Mohanlal N.K., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all the cases and Smt.Neema T.V. and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutors and Smt. Anupa Anna Jose Kandoth, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto-complainant/intervenor. B.A.Nos.1335, 1442, 1443, 1445 & 1448 of 2024 8 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the above crimes. A reading of the FIRs would substantiate that the dispute is purely civil in nature. Therefore, the predicate offence will not be attracted. The defacto-complainant has deliberately instituted separate complaints against the petitioner just to harass and vex him. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 11.02.2024, the investigation in the cases is complete and recoveries have been effected. Therefore, the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the applications. They contended that the petitioner and the other accused have committed grave economic offences by cheating the defacto-complainant. They made him invest 8.62 crore assuring him profits in different business ventures. The accused have shared the money but have failed to keep up to their assurance. The petitioner and the other accused have consciously cheated the defacto-complainant. The investigation is at its nascent stage. The materials have to be recovered and B.A.Nos.1335, 1442, 1443, 1445 & 1448 of 2024 9 the accounts have to be verified. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him tampering with the evidence and influencing the witnesses. Hence, the applications may be dismissed. 7. The learned counsel for the defacto-complainant also seriously opposed the applications. She contended that the petitioner and the other accused have been protracting the investigation. Initially, they agreed to settle the matter out of court. Consequently, this Court stayed the arrest of the petitioner and the other accused on their assurance that the matter would be settled in mediation. Subsequently, by order dated 06.07.2023 in W.P.(Crl.)No.85/2023, this Court vacated the interim order restraining the petitioner's arrest. Then the petitioner withdrew the writ petition on 24.07.2023. Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner filed applications under Section 438 of the Code before this Court as B.A.Nos.5646, 5651, 5656, 5659 & 5668 of 2023. But, by common order dated 22.12.2023, this Court dismissed all the above applications. The matters did not end there. Subsequently, the petitioner again filed applications under Section 438 of the Code as B.A.Nos.463/2024 & 466/2024, 470/2024, 473/2024 & B.A.Nos.1335, 1442, 1443, 1445 & 1448 of 2024 10 475/2024. The said applications were also dismissed by this Court on 31.01.2024. It is after all these rounds of litigation, that the petitioner was finally arrested on 11.02.2024. There are incriminating materials to substantiate that the petitioner has shared the money and cheated the defacto complainant. The petitioner is an influential person. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him sabotaging the entire investigation. Hence, the applications may be dismissed. 8. On evaluation of the materials placed on record in the above five applications, it can be deciphered that the prosecution allegation is that the accused had hatched a conspiracy and in furtherance of their common intention had received Rs.8.62 crore from the defacto-complainant assuring him profits in various business ventures. However, they did not pay him any profit or return his investment. In the preliminary investigation it is revealed that the petitioner has received Rs.1.25 crore, i.e. the money involved in Crime No.196/2023 and Rs.50 lakh involved in crime No.205/203. Therefore, prima facie the accusations attributed against the petitioner seem to be justifiable. 9. In **Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and** B.A.Nos.1335, 1442, 1443, 1445 & 1448 of 2024 11 ## **Anr.** [(2010) 14 SCC 496], the 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.” ## 10. 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 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 B.A.Nos.1335, 1442, 1443, 1445 & 1448 of 2024 12 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. ## 11. 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 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.” ## 12. 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 B.A.Nos.1335, 1442, 1443, 1445 & 1448 of 2024 13 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 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.” 13. On an anxious consideration of the facts, materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar and on comprehending the nature, seriousness and gravity of the economic offences alleged against the petitioner, the potential severity of the punishment that is likely to be imposed on him and that the petitioner is involved in five crimes of similar nature and further the reasonable apprehension projected by the prosecution that the petitioner is likely to sabotage with the investigation, I am not convinced and satisfied that the petitioner is to be released on bail at this stage, as it would have a deleterious impact on the society and justice will be thwarted. Hence, I hold that the applications are B.A.Nos.1335, 1442, 1443, 1445 & 1448 of 2024 14 meritless and are only liable to be dismissed. Resultantly, these applications are dismissed. Sd/- **C.S.DIAS JUDGE** **shg**