:null

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 3062 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 3 AND 4:** 1 BABU AGED 60 YEARS S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, LOKAMALESWARAMVILLAGE, THRISSUR RURAL, PIN - 680664 2 ASHOKAN PILLAI SUB REGISTRAR, KODUNGALLUR, LOKAMALESWARAM VILLAGE THRISSUR, PIN – 680664 (S/O.SANKARAN PILLAI,AGED 51 YEARS,DARSANAM EARAM, MEENAD VILLAGE,KARAMKODE P.O, CHATHANNUR,KOLLAM TALUK ,KOLLAM DISTRICT) BY ADVS. M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN K.S.RAJESH ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADVS. ABHILASH K.N. BABU THOMAS (PAZHAYATHOTTATHIL) ANU PAUL SREELAKSHMI MENON P. SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT RITHIK S.ANAND BY ADV. SMT. MAYA M.N., PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2023, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..3077/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NOs. 3062 & 3077 OF 2023 2 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 3077 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONERS/ 5TH ACCUSED:** JALEEL, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.KUNJU MOIDEEN, VALIYA VEETTIL HOUSE ERIYAD VILLAGE , THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680666 BY ADVS. M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN K.S.RAJESH ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN -682031 BY ADVS. ABHILASH K.N. SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT RITHIK S.ANAND BABU THOMAS (PAZHAYATHOTTATHIL) ANU PAUL JACOB SREELAKSHMI MENON P. RISHI VARMA T.R. SMT.MAYA M.N., PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2023, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..3062/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NOs. 3062 & 3077 OF 2023 3 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------B.A.Nos.3062 & 3077 of 2023 ------------------------------Dated this the 02[nd] day of August, 2023** **O R D E R** These Bail applications are filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). These Bail applications are filed by the accused in the same case and therefore, I am disposing of these Bail applications by a common order. 2. Petitioners in these Bail applications are the accused in Crime No.526/2023 of Kondungallur Police Station, Thrissur district. The above case is registered against the petitioners and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 465, 420, 120-B r/w 34 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners along with the other accused made the BAIL APPL. NOs. 3062 & 3077 OF 2023 **==> picture [7 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** _de-facto_ complainant and his parties believe that the liability on the property having an extent of 6 cents owned by the 1[st] and 2[nd] accused was only Rs.4,25,000/- with the Town Co-Operative Bank, Kodungallur and persuaded him to execute a sale deed to purchase the said property in favour of the _de-facto_ complainant. As per the understanding, a sale deed was executed. It was also alleged that the said sale deed was executed by furnishing a forged encumbrance certificate of the property wherein the liability on the said property was shown as Rs.4,25,000/- and the said forgery was alleged to have been committed by the 3[rd] and 4[th] accused. When the defacto complainant approached the Bank to clear the liability, then it came to his knowledge that the total liability on the property was Rs.19,50,000/- BAIL APPL. NOs. 3062 & 3077 OF 2023 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** and the defacto complaint sustained a loss of Rs.15,25,000/-. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the aforesaid offences. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. I also heard the counsel appearing for the defacto complainant. The counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterated the contentions raised in these Bail applications and submitted that the 6[th] accused was already released on bail by this Court as per order dated 21.06.2023 in B.A.No.3641/2023. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are necessary. Counsel appearing for the defacto complainant submitted that, it is clear from the records that the petitioners committed the offences. The discretionary jurisdiction under BAIL APPL. NOs. 3062 & 3077 OF 2023 **==> picture [7 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** Section 438 Cr.P.C. may not be invoked in this case. 5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the respondents. These Bail applications are pending before this Court from 11.04.2023 and 12.04.2023 onwards. There is an interim order, not to arrest the petitioners. The prosecution has not taken any steps to vacate that interim order as on today. Moreover, the 6[th] accused is already released on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is true that the allegations against the petitioners are very serious. But from the facts narrated, it is clear that, this can be proved through oral and documentary evidences. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary. No recovery also may not be necessary. But the petitioners can be directed to BAIL APPL. NOs. 3062 & 3077 OF 2023 7 surrender before the Investigating Officer for interrogation and after interrogation, if the arrest of the petitioners are necessary, there can be a direction to release them on bail. 6. 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 the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that, the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. 7. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and BAIL APPL. NOs. 3062 & 3077 OF 2023 **==> picture [7 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** circumstances of this case, these Bail Applications are allowed with the following directions: 1. Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation; 2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned; 3. Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts 9 BAIL APPL. NOs. 3062 & 3077 OF 2023 of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; 4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court; 5. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected; 6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** DM