Rajasree Pillai v. State of Kerala

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ## `THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS` ``` TUESDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ## `BAIL APPL. NO. 1196 OF 2024` ``` CRIME NO.3/2024 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2024 IN BAIL APPL. NO.752 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` RAJASREE PILLAI, AGED 53 YEARS W/O SAHADEVAN PILLAI, VINAYAKAM HOUSE, THRIKKARIYOOR PO, PIN – 686692 ``` ``` BY ADVS.GAYATHRI MURALEEDHARAN ARATHY P. ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 2B.B. KISHORE, S/O BHASKARAN KARTHA, RESIDING AT VRINDAVAN HOUSE, MUDAVOOR P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED ) ``` ``` BY ADVS.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL RONY JOSE LEO LUKOSE KAROL MATHEWS SEBASTIAN ALENCHERRY DERICK MATHAI SAJI KARAN SCARIA ABRAHAM S.SREEDEV ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` SR PP SMT NEEMA T V ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.1196/2024 -:2:- Dated this the 27[th] day of February,2024 ## **O R D E R** This is the second application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the first accused in Crime No.3/2024 of Muvattupuzha Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against the accused (two in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 468, 477A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was arrested on 14.01.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: while the first accused was working in a company named 'Ayurveda Medical Equipment', she directed the customers of the said company to transfer the money to the bank account of the second accused – her daughter. Accordingly, the accused 1 & 2 made an unlawful gain of Rs.77,52,981/-. Thus, the accused B.A.No.1196/2024 -:3:- have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Kum.Gayathri Muraleedharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Smt. Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Sri. S. Sreedev, the learned counsel appearing for the intervenor/de-facto complainant. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against her. She has been falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioner had only complied with the directions of her employer. In fact, it was her employer, who was evading tax to the Government. At any rate, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 14.01.2024, which is nearly two months. The investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the B.A.No.1196/2024 -:4:- ## application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that the investigation in the case is still in progress. She also submitted that, if the petitioner is let off on bail, there is every likelihood of her intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor also opposed the application. He reiterated the contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor. He also prayed that the application may be dismissed. 7. The prosecution allegation is that, the petitioner, while she was working as an employee of the de-facto complainant for about four years, fraudulently diverted money received from the customers of the de-facto complainant to the bank account of the second accused. 8. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI** [2012 1 SCC 40], B.A.No.1196/2024 -:5:- the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence until a person is found guilty. Any imprisonment prior to conviction is to be considered as a punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct. 9. In **Dataram Singh v. State of U.P** . [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is a rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. Even though the grant of bail is entirely the discretion of the court, it has to be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of each case and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner. 10. Subsequently, in **State of Kerala v. Raneef** [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has again held that undertrial prisoners detained in jail B.A.No.1196/2024 -:6:- for indefinite periods, without any sufficient reason or due to the delay in concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 11. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record and particularly taking note of the fact the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 14.01.2024, that the investigation in the case, so far as the petitioner is concerned, is practically complete and the recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further 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 bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, B.A.No.1196/2024 -:7:- 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 two months or till the final report is filed, 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; - (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 B.A.No.1196/2024 ## -:8:- ## 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. - (vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be filed and entertained before the court below. - (vii) 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/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/27.02.24 //True copy// P.A. To Judge