High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail Granted (on conditions)

LALKRISHNA E.A v. STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:1523 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S. DIAS
Judgment Date
2024-03-12
Court Decision / Holding
The bail application is allowed. The petitioner Lalkrishna E.A. is to be released on bail on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties of equal amount, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer on Saturdays for a month or until final report; (ii) no inducement or tampering with witnesses; (iii) no offences while on bail; (iv) surrender or affidavits regarding passport; (v) providing current and permanent addresses and mobile number; (vi) jurisdictional court may cancel bail on violation; (vii) applications for modification of conditions to be entertained by the court below; (viii) investigations and recoveries may continue even on bail as per the principle laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another. Bench notes that the first accused is already on bail and that investigation is substantially complete, with recoveries effected.
Final Disposition
Bail Granted (on conditions)

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • LALKRISHNA E.A

Respondents

  • State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Deepak Mohan
  • • V. S. Anu Mon

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt Seetha S (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application by the third accused in Crime No.1205/2023 of Narakkal Police Station, Ernakulam, under Sections 420, 468 read with 34 IPC and Sections 10 and 24(I)(b) of the Immigration Act, 1983. The applicant, Lalkrishna E.A., was arrested on 9 February 2023 along with two others. The prosecution’s case is that, in furtherance of a common plan with accused 1 and 2, the trio cheated the husband of the de facto complainant by promising employment in France and by issuing a fake visa, leading to the husband’s interception by emigration authorities in Delhi; part of the misappropriated funds have been recovered, with the accused allegedly receiving portions of the amount. The petitioner contends his innocence and argues that the first accused has already been granted bail by the Sessions Court and that investigation is practically complete with recoveries effected. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, arguing there is a specific overt act and that release could jeopardize the ongoing inquiry. The High Court, after considering custodial duration (since 9.2.2023), completed investigation, recovery, and co-accused’s bail status, grants bail on a Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, imposing conditions including regular appearance, no tampering with witnesses, surrender of passport, and reporting requirements, citing Sushila Aggarwal for allowing IO investigations even on bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 420, 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal CodeSections 10 and 24(I)(b) of the Immigration Act, 1983

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Common intention

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner asserts complete innocence, contending that offences were committed by accused 1 and 2 who collected the money and promised employment abroad; he is not the principal mover. He has been in judicial custody since 9.2.2023, and investigation is practically complete with recoveries effected. The first accused has already been enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court (Crl.M.C 3466/2023). On these grounds, the petitioner seeks bail.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, highlighting a specific overt act and the petitioner’s involvement in sharing the misappropriated funds. Releasing him could risk jeopardizing the investigation and complicate return of the amount/records. The State argues that the possibility of tampering or influencing witnesses exists and that the offences are serious in nature.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another2020 (1) KHC 663PositiveCited to justify that an Investigating Officer can continue investigations and effect recoveries even while the accused is on bail, and to support the conditional framework of bail.

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 LALKRISHNA E.A 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.

1 Bail Application No. 1523 of 2024 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 1523 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1205/2023 OF Narakkal Police Station, Ernakulam ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` LALKRISHNA E.A AGED 28 YEARS ERIMAL HOUSE, POOPATHY P.O, POYYA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680733 BY ADVS. DEEPAK MOHAN V.S.ANU MON ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA ``` ``` REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA , ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` Sr PP Smt Seetha S ``` ## **`THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON`** ``` 12.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 Bail Application No. 1523 of 2024 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** ## **======================** ## **Bail Application No. 1523 of 2024 ----------------------------------Dated this the 12[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 third accused in crime No.1205/2023 of the Njarakkal Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against the accused (three in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs.420, 468 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code and Secs.10 and24(I) (b) of Immigration Act, 1983. The petitioner was arrested on 9.2.2023. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: the accused in furtherance of their common intention to cheat the husband of the de facto complainant had received 3 Bail Application No. 1523 of 2024 Rs.8,35,000/- from him assuring him an employment in France. However, they have issued a fake Visa to the husband of the de facto complainant, who travelled with the said document and was intercepted by the Emigration officials at the New Delhi airport and was remanded to judicial custody. The accused have not returned the said amount. In the investigation, it is revealed that the first accused received Rs.85,000/-, the second accused received Rs.4.5/- Lakh and the third accused received Rs.3/- Lakh out of the above said amount. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Deepak Mohan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha.S, the learned Public Prosecutor. 4 Bail Application No. 1523 of 2024 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The offences were committed by the accused 1 and 2 who received the said amount and assured the husband of the de facto complainant an employment abroad. Notwithstanding the other contentions raised in the application, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 9.2.2023, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Moreover, the first accused has been released on bail by the Court of Session, Ernakulam, as per the order in Crl.M.C 3466/2023. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She contended that there is a specific overt 5 Bail Application No. 1523 of 2024 act alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has also shared the money that was deceitfully received from the husband of the de facto complainant. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him sabotaging the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The crux of the prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that, in furtherance of his common intention with the accused 1 and 2, the accused cheated the husband of the de facto complainant by assuring him an employment abroad and, thereafter, gave him a fake Visa, which resulted in him being arrested by the Emigration authorities. The petitioner also received a portion of the amount that was misappropriated. 6 Bail Application No. 1523 of 2024 7. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, rival submission made across the Bar, the materials placed on record, especially taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 9.2.2023, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, that the recovery has been effected and that the first accused has been enlarged on bail by the Court of Session, Ernakulam, as per the order in Crl MC 3466/2023 , I am of the view that the petitioner’s continued detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a 7 Bail Application No. 1523 of 2024 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 for a period of one month or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (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; 8 Bail Application No. 1523 of 2024 (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) The petitioner shall furnish his present address and permanent address, and his mobile phone number to the court below and the Investigating Officer; (vi) 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. 9 Bail Application No. 1523 of 2024 (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 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/- sks/12.3.2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**