Lijo Jacob John v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **TUESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 520 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.1182/2023 OF MANNARKKAD POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **LIJO JACOB JOHN AGED 37 YEARS S/O. YOHANNAN, VATTAVILA PUTHENVEEDU, KATTACHAL P.O, CHENKALAM, POOYAPPALLI, KOLLAM-691537, PIN - 691537** **BY ADVS. S.K.ADHITHYAN REUBEN CHARLY** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** **2 SHO MANNARKAD POLICE STATION MANNARKAD POLICE STATION, MANNARKAD P.O PALAKKAD, PIN - 678582** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.02.2024, THE** **COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **BAIL APPL.NO.520 OF 2024** **2** ## **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.1182/2023 of the Mannarkkad Police Station, Palakkad, registered against the accused (three in number) for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 27.11.2023. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: between June, 2022 and October, 2022 the accused 1 to 3 induced the first informant to pay them Rs.3,40,000/- and also further induced him to take a loan of Rs.8,60,000/- and pay them the amount for the purpose of securing a Paramedical course seat in Bangalore for the children of the first informant. Accordingly, the first informant handed over the amounts to the accused. However, the accused did not provide the seat as assured or return the amount. Thus, the accused have committed the above offence. **BAIL APPL.NO.520 OF 2024** **3** 3. Heard; Sri.S.K.Adhithyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. Notwithstanding the other contentions raised in the bail application, the police have not filed the final report even after the period of sixty days. Indisputably, the only offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 420 IPC, which is only punishable with the maximum imprisonment for a period of seven years. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on statutory bail in view of the proviso to Sub Section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code', for short). Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. The petitioner is a person with criminal **BAIL APPL.NO.520 OF 2024** **4** antecedents. The petitioner is involved in 20 other cases of similar nature. If the petitioner is released on bail, it would hamper with the investigation. Nonetheless, the learned Public Prosecutor conceded to the fact that the petitioner is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 420 IPC and that the final report has not been laid till date. 6. In the case on hand, the prosecution case is that, the accused induced the defacto complainant to give money on the assurance that they would secure a paramedical course seat for the children of the informant in Bangalore. Even though the accused received the money, they failed to return the amount or secure the admission. Thus, the accused have committed the offence under Section 420 of IPC. 7. An offence under Section 420 of IPC is punishable with a maximum imprisonment for a period of seven years. Indisputably, the investigation in the case is not complete and the final report has not been laid. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to compulsive bail as contemplated in the proviso to **BAIL APPL.NO.520 OF 2024** **5** Sub Section (2) of Section 167 of the Code. 8. Dealing with an identical issue the Honourable Supreme Court in **Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation** [(2022) 10 SCC 51], has held in the following manner: “39. S.167(2) was introduced in the year 1978, giving emphasis to the maximum period of time to complete the investigation. This provision has got a laudable object behind it, which is to ensure an expeditious investigation and a fair trial, and to set down a rationalised procedure that protects the interests of the indigent sections of society. This is also another limb of Art.21. Presumption of innocence is also inbuilt in this provision. An investigating agency has to expedite the process of investigation as a suspect is languishing under incarceration. Thus, a duty is enjoined upon the agency to complete the investigation within the time prescribed and a failure would enable the release of the accused. The right enshrined is an absolute and indefeasible one, inuring to the benefit of suspect. 40.Such a right cannot be taken away even during any unforeseen circumstances, such as the recent pandemic, as held by this Court in M. Ravindran v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [(2021) 2 SCC 485] ………………..” **BAIL APPL.NO.520 OF 2024** **6** 9. This Court in **Azharudheen V. State of Kerala** (2024 (1) KHC 309) has held that once the statutory right of the accused accrues, even an oral application is sufficient to enlarge him on bail. 10. On an overall consideration of the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 27.11.2023, which is more than 71 days, the petitioner is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 420 IPC and that the final report has not been laid within the stipulated time period, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on statutory bail as contemplated under Section 167(2) of the Code. In the result, the application is allowed by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, which shall be subject to the following **BAIL APPL.NO.520 OF 2024** **7** ## conditions: - (i) The petitioner shall 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 them from disclosing such facts to the jurisdictional Court or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; - (iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail; - (iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the jurisdictional Court 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) 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. **BAIL APPL.NO.520 OF 2024** **8** (vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. **Sd/C.S.DIAS JUDGE** **shg**