Pranav and Preethi v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 19TH VAISAKHA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 2716 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 461/2023 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA** ## **PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.1 & 2:** 1 PRANAV AGED 24 YEARS S/O PRASANNAN, USHA NIVAS, PUNNAPRA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688004 2 PREETHI AGED 30 YEARS D/O.PRASANNAN, AGED 30 YEARS, USHA NIVAS, PUNNAPRA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688004 BY ADV SUBI K. ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY ADV. T V NEEMA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.2716 of 2023 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **--------------------------------** B.A.No.2716 of 2023 **------------------------------Dated this the 09[th] day of May, 2023** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) 2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.63/2023 of Punnapra Police Station, Alappuzha. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention to make unlawful gain to them caused unlawful loss to the defacto complainant. It is alleged that the petitioners promised that they B.A.No.2716 of 2023 3 will arrange job for the defacto complainant in a company named My Brush at Malaysia and obtained a total amount of Rs.1,15,000/- from the defacto complainant. After obtaining the amount, the accused had taken the defacto complainant to Malaysia, but they neither arranged the job nor returned the amount. It is alleged that the defacto complainant was happened to be detained in a jail at Malaysia. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged and the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant them bail. B.A.No.2716 of 2023 4 The counsel also submitted that, even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Section 406 and 420 IPC is made out. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand seriously opposed the Bail application. 5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. The main allegation is that the petitioners offered a job at Malaysia and collected huge amount from the defacto complainant. Thereafter the defacto complainant has not obtained the offered job. I don't want to make any observation about the merit of the case. The Apex Court in **Archana Rana v. State of U.P. and Others** [2021 (3) SCC 751] observed that, giving money to get job will not attract Section 420 IPC. Whether the principle laid down by the Apex Court is B.A.No.2716 of 2023 5 applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case is a matter to be decided by the Investigating Officer during the investigation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary. The petitioners can be released on bail imposing stringent conditions. There can be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer once in a week till final report is filed. 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 B.A.No.2716 of 2023 6 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 circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is 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 B.A.No.2716 of 2023 7 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 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; B.A.No.2716 of 2023 **==> picture [6 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 6. Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 11 a.m. till Final Report is filed. 7. 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. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** DM