High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-05-04Bail granted

Majeesh C.T v State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BA Nos. 2203/2022, 2205/2022, 2206/2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2022-05-04
Court Decision / Holding: Bail applications are allowed; the petitioner is released on bail in B.A.Nos.2203/2022, 2205/2022 and 2206/2022 on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, and on conditions including appearance before the investigating officer, cooperation with investigation, not leaving India without permission, not committing similar offences, and that failure to comply can lead to cancellation of bail. The prosecution and the victim are free to move the jurisdictional court to cancel bail if necessary.
Final Disposition: Bail granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Majeesh C.T.

Respondents

State of Kerala
Public Prosecutor (on behalf of State)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V. A. Johnson (Varikkappallil)

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Sreeja V.

Case Synopsis & Summary

These bail applications arise from three distinct FIRs registered in Kottarakkara, Vaikom and Punalur police stations against Majeesh C.T. for allegedly obtaining vehicles from defacto complainants through Facebook, under a written agreement to return the vehicles on a specified date, but not returning them. The petitioner seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC, contending that even if the allegations are accepted, the offences under Section 420 IPC are not made out, as the acts may reflect a breach of contract rather than a dishonest intention to cheat. He submits that he is ready to abide by conditions imposed by the court and to cooperate with the investigation. The Public Prosecutor counters that the offences are serious, that the applicant has been arrested in multiple cases and there are several cases pending, and that bail should not be granted given the risk of flight and interference with investigation. The court notes the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing the Supreme Court in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, and proceeds to consider the circumstances. It ultimately grants bail in all three petitions, with a bond of Rs.50,000 and two solvent sureties, and imposes standard conditions including appearance before the investigating officer, cooperation with police, not leaving the country, and refraining from committing similar offences. The Court also indicates that failure to comply can lead to cancellation of bail, and the prosecution or victim may move the court to cancel bail if violations occur.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 CrPCSection 420 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that even accepting the allegations, the offence under Section 420 IPC is not made out. The agreement to employ/obtain the vehicles through Facebook does not necessarily establish cheating; even if facts are accepted, the accused is ready to abide by any bail conditions and cooperate with the investigation. The element of dishonest intention is contested, and the gravity of the offence is mitigated by the lack of direct evidence of misappropriation. The petitioner emphasizes the constitutional presumption of innocence and the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing established bail jurisprudence. He contends that further custodial detention is not necessary for a fair trial.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, arguing that the offences are serious and involve deceit regarding vehicle hire via social media. The petitioner has been arrested in multiple cases and several other cases are pending, indicating a pattern. The risk of flight, interference with witnesses, and repetition of offences justify continued custody or strict bail conditions. The prosecution asserts that releasing the accused would undermine ongoing investigations and public interest.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited to support the bail principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, guiding grant of bail in the present facts.

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 Majeesh C.T 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.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 14TH VAISAKHA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 2203 OF 2022** **CRIME NO.2854/2021 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM** ## **PETITIONER:** MAJEESH.C.T AGED 29 YEARS SON OF THANKAMANI, CHAMMINI HOUSE, ATHIPOTTA, THAROOR, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678544 BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) ## **RESPONDENTS:** STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV.SMT.SREEJA V, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.05.2022, ALONG WITH BAIL APPLICATION NOS.2205/2022, 2206/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.Nos.2203, 2205 and 2206 of 2022 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 14TH VAISAKHA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 2205 OF 2022** **CRIME NO.2232/2021 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM** ## **PETITIONER:** MAJEESH AGED 29 YEARS SON OF THANKAMANI, CHAMMINI HOUSE, ATHIPOTTA, THAROOR, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678544 BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) ## **RESPONDENTS:** STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV. SMT.SREEJA V, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.05.2022, ALONG WITH BAIL APPLICATION NOS.2203/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.Nos.2203, 2205 and 2206 of 2022 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 14TH VAISAKHA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 2206 OF 2022** **CRIME NO.193/2022 OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM** ## **PETITIONER:** MAJEESH AGED 29 YEARS SON OF THANKAMANI, CHAMMINI HOUSE, THAROOR, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678544 BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) ## **RESPONDENT:** STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV. SMT.SREEJA V, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.05.2022, ALONG WITH BAIL APPLICATION NOS.2203/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.Nos.2203, 2205 and 2206 of 2022 4 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A.Nos.2203, 2205 and 2206 of 2022 ------------------------------Dated this the 4[th ] day of May, 2022 ## **O R D E R** These Bail Applications are filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Petitioner in these three bail applications is the same but he is involved in different crimes in different police stations. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.2854 of 2021 of Kottarakkara Police Station, Crime No.2232 of 2021 of Vaikom Police Station and Crime No.193 of 2022 of Punalur Police Station. 3. The prosecution case in all the cases are similar. According to the prosecution, the accused got acquaintance with the defacto complainants in these cases through face book and demanded the defacto complainants vehicles B.A.Nos.2203, 2205 and 2206 of 2022 5 in connection with the employment of the accused and obtained the same as per a written agreement for a period undertaking to return the vehicle on a specific date. It is stated that the vehicles were not returned. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed offences under Section 420 IPC. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Section 420 of the IPC is not made out. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant him bail. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner was arrested in B.A.2203/2022 on 20.02.2022, in B.A.No.2205/2022 on 2.03.2022 and in B.A.Nos.2203, 2205 and 2206 of 2022 6 B.A.No.2206/2022 on 20.02.2022. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner committed similar offences and several cases are pending against the petitioner. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. The petitioner is in custody in the above cases from February 2022 onwards. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the light of the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last several days, the bail application can be allowed. 5. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870),** after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is B.A.Nos.2203, 2205 and 2206 of 2022 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. 6. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: 1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the B.A.Nos.2203, 2205 and 2206 of 2022 8 investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. 5. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court B.A.Nos.2203, 2205 and 2206 of 2022 9 can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above conditions. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** DM B.A.Nos.2203, 2205 and 2206 of 2022 10 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2205/2022** PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE1 CITIZEN COPY OF THE F.I.R.NO.2232/2021 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DATED 02.10.2021 B.A.Nos.2203, 2205 and 2206 of 2022 11 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2206/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE1 CITIZEN COPY OF THE F.I.R.NO.193/2022 OF PUNALOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM RURAL B.A.Nos.2203, 2205 and 2206 of 2022 12 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2203/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE1 CITIZEN COPY OF THE F.I.R.NO.2854/2021 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM RURAL DATED 16.12.2021 //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE