High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-12Bail Granted

Ramachandran v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 1853 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-03-12
Court Decision / Holding: The application is allowed. The petitioner Ramachandran is to be released on bail on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties of like amount. Conditions include: (i) appearance before Investigating Officer every Saturday for one month or until final report; (ii) no inducement or tampering with witnesses; (iii) no commission of any offence while on bail; (iv) surrender of passport (or affidavit if none); (v) court empowered to cancel bail on violation; (vi) modifications of conditions may be sought; (vii) Investigating Officer may continue investigations and effect recoveries while on bail as per established Supreme Court guidance (Sushila Aggarwal v. State, etc.). The order is issued by C.S. Dias, J.
Final Disposition: Bail Granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ramachandran, aged 56 years, S/o Subbayyan

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Station House Officer Mannanthala Police Station, Mannanthala P.O., Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. A.S. Shammy Raj

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt Seetha S., Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

Ramachandran, the fourth accused in Crime No.34/2024 of Mannanthala Police Station, seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC. The allegation concerns a conspiracy in which gold ornaments worth Rs. 96,23,678 were allegedly misappropriated from a Catholic Syrian Bank branch; the 1st accused, former Branch Manager, took the ornaments and passed them to the 2nd accused, who handed them to the 3rd, and the 4th accused replaced the stones/pearls and melted the gold at his residence before it was sold to a jeweller, with shared profits among the accused. The offences alleged are under Sections 409, 420, 120(b) and 34 IPC. The petitioner has been in custody since 17.01.2024. The prosecution contends ongoing investigation and argues against bail given the magnitude of the crime, noting that the 3rd accused has already been released on bail (Annexure A5). The defence pleads innocence and false implication, highlighting that investigation is nearly complete and recovery has been effected. The judge cites Supreme Court principles: presumption of innocence (Sanjay Chandra v. CBI); bail as the rule with detention as an exception (Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.); and the risk of prolonged detention infringing Article 21 (State of Kerala v. Raneef). Relying on these principles and the co-accused’s bail, the court concludes further detention is unnecessary and grants bail with conditions, directing bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, regular IO appearances, non-inducement, no tampering with witnesses, passport surrender if applicable, and related safeguards, under the order of Judge C.S. Dias.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 409, 420, 120(b) and 34 of the Indian Penal CodeArticle 21 of the Constitution

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty
Grant of bail is the rule and imprisonment pending trial is the exception
Undertrial prisoners' detention without due reason infringes Article 21

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends total innocence and false implication. He notes custody since 17.01.2024, nearly complete investigation, and recovery. He points to the 3rd accused having already been granted bail (Annexure A5) and argues parity and lack of likelihood of obstructing the investigation. He relies on fundamental bail principles and judicial dicta emphasizing presumption of innocence and the permissibility of bail in absence of compelling reasons to deny it.

Contentions of Respondents

The State opposes bail, asserting ongoing investigation and the gravity of the offences. It contends that grant of bail could jeopardize the investigation, potential tampering with witnesses, and the risk of reoffending, given the amount and nature of the accused conduct.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI	2012 (1) SCC 40	Positive	Emphasizes presumption of innocence; bail should not be denied solely on prior conduct.
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.	(2018) 3 SCC 22	Positive	-Bail is the rule; detention is exception; discretionary, fact-specific.
State of Kerala v. Raneef	(2011) 1 SCC 784	Positive	Detention without reasonable cause infringes Article 21; supports bail considerations.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Affirms that investigations and recoveries may proceed while a person is on bail; aligns with bail conditions.

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 Ramachandran 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 C.S.DIAS** **TUESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 1853 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.34/2024 OF MANNANTHALA POLICE STATION, Thiruvananthapuram AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.1104 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER/S:** **RAMACHANDRAN AGED 56 YEARS S/O SUBBAYYAN, AKSHAYA HOUSE, CHANTHAVILA, KARIPPOORU.P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695541** ## **BY ADV A.S.SHAMMY RAJ** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER MANNANTHALA POLICE STATION, MANNANTHALA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695015** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR PP SMT SEETHA S** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 1853 OF 2024 2 ## **ORDER** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 4[th] accused in Crime No.34/2024 of Mannanthala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram registered against the accused (four in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120 (b) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 17.01.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 04.11.2023 at 12 p.m. the 1[st] accused who was the former Branch Manager of the Catholic Syrian Bank, Nalanchira Branch took 1727.77 grams of gold ornaments having a value of Rs.96,23,678/- from the strong room of the bank and handed over the same to the 2[nd] accused who in turn gave it to the 3[rd] accused. Thereafter, the 4[th] accused replaced the stones and pearls of the said ornaments and melted the gold ornaments in his house. Subsequently, the gold was taken for testing its purity. Thereafter, the gold BAIL APPL. NO. 1853 OF 2024 3 was sold to the Kerala Jewelery, East Fort and the accused shared the profit between them. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Shammy Raj A.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. Notwithstanding the other contentions raised in the bail application, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 17.01.2024. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. By Annexure-A5 order, the 3[rd] accused has been released on bail by this Court as early as on 01.03.2024. The observations made in Annexure-A5 order by itself entitles the petitioner to be released on bail. The petitioner’s BAIL APPL. NO. 1853 OF 2024 4 further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that the investigation in the case is still in progress. Going by the magnitude of the crime, the petitioner shall not be released on bail because there is likelihood of him the every sabotaging investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The gist of the prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that, he hatched a conspiracy with the other accused and in furtherance of their common intention, they misappropriated gold ornaments of the customers of the defacto complainant bank and handed it over to the 4[th] accused, who melted the gold and sold it to a third party jewelery shop 7. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,** [2012 1 SCC 40], the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the BAIL APPL. NO. 1853 OF 2024 5 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. 8. 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. 9. Subsequently, in **State of Kerala v. Raneef,** [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has again held that undertrial prisoners detained in jail 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. BAIL APPL. NO. 1853 OF 2024 6 10. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 17.01.2024, that the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected, and further that the 3[rd] accused has been released on bail by this Court as per Annexure A5 order and that the petitioner is at par with the said accused, 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.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions: BAIL APPL. NO. 1853 OF 2024 7 i. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of one month or till the final report is laid, 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 bond; BAIL APPL. NO. 1853 OF 2024 8 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 moved and entertained by 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** rkc/12.03.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 1853 OF 2024 9 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1853/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. DATED 13.1.2024 IN CRIME NO.34/2024 OF MANNANTHALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT** **Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT DATED 17.1.2024 IN CRIME NO.34/2024 OF MANNANTHALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT BY THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, MANNANTHALA POLICE STATION Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.1.2024 IN C.M.P. NO.81/2024 ISSUED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-V (SPECIAL COURT FOR MARKLIST CASES), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19-02-2024 IN BAIL APPL.1104/2024 ON HIGH COURT Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.3.2024 IN BAIL APPL. NO.1539/2024 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA**