High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-08-02Bail granted to the petitioner on specified con...

Sajith Kumar M.V. v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 6162 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. DIAS
Judgment Date: 2024-08-02
Court Decision / Holding: The application is allowed; the petitioner Sajith Kumar M.V. is directed to be released on bail on a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions: (i) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every second Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. until final report; (ii) no inducement or interference with witnesses or evidence; (iii) no offence during bail; (iv) breach may lead to cancellation of bail; (v) applications for modification of conditions may be filed; (vi) IO may continue investigation and effect recoveries as permitted by law, including reference to Sushila Aggarwal. The order emphasizes the overarching bail principle and the need to balance individual liberty with public interest.
Final Disposition: Bail granted to the petitioner on specified conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sajith Kumar M.V.

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• B.Muhammed Shaheel
• Keerthi Vijayan
• Jyothi R. Nair
• Feba Mary Thomas

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt.Seetha S., Sr.PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application filed by Sajith Kumar M.V. under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in Cr. No. 227/2024 of Payangadi Police Station, Kannur, under Section 420 IPC. The de facto complainant alleged that the petitioner induced him in May 2019 to secure an employment visa in Spain and paid him Rs. 6,81,890 on various dates, but the visa was not arranged and the money was not returned. The petitioner was arrested on 24.06.2024 and has remained in judicial custody for 47 days; the investigation is described as practically complete and recoveries have been effected. The prosecution characterizes him as a habitual offender with multiple cheating cases across the state, arguing that bail would enable further wrongdoing; they seek denial of bail. The petitioner’s counsel argues innocence, false implication, and lack of sufficient material to establish guilt, emphasizing his prior arrests do not justify detention. The court recalls well‑established bail principles from Hussainara Khatoon I, which hold that bail is the norm and imprisonment is an exception, and from Dataram Singh on the need for a judicious, case‑specific evaluation. It also cites State of Kerala v. Raneef on Article 21 protections for undertrial prisoners and the right to timely trial. Ultimately, after balancing interests, the court grants bail subject to stringent conditions, directing a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties and enumerating several supervisory conditions, including appearance before the IO and non‑inducement of witnesses, while preserving the IO’s authority to continue investigation and effect recoveries in line with Sushila Aggarwal.

Provisions of Law Cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 483Indian Penal Code, Section 420

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
Right to bail cannot be denied merely due to public sentiment; life and liberty under Article 21 are protected.
Article 21 as the touchstone for the right to life and liberty, requiring timely and fair consideration of bail in the context of detention.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends innocence and false implication, asserting there is no material establishing the alleged offence and noting that he has already undergone 47 days in custody. He argues that the investigation is practically complete and recoveries have been made; his prior arrests do not justify denial of bail. Relying on Hussainara Khatoon (I) and Dataram Singh, the petitioner submits that bail is the norm and detention is an exception, to be weighed against the circumstances of the case, with Article 21 protecting personal liberty. He requests release on bail with appropriate conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The State opposes bail, describing the petitioner as a habitual offender with numerous cheating cases across the State. It contends that releasing him could lead to further offences and undermine public faith in the process, arguing that the gravity of the alleged offence (Section 420 IPC) and the petitioner’s antecedents justify detention pending trial.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar	(1980) 1 SCC 81	Positive	Court endorses the principle that antecedents do not automatically bar bail; bail is favored unless strong reasons exist.
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.	(2018) 3 SCC 22	Positive	Affirms that bail is the rule and detention is the exception, with discretion to be exercised judiciously on facts.
State of Kerala v. Raneef	(2011) 1 SCC 784	Positive	Underlines Article 21 protections for undertrial prisoners and the risk of prolonged detention.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Supports the use of bail conditions allowing continued investigation and recoveries where appropriate.

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 Sajith Kumar M.V. 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 ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 6162 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.227/2024 OF Payangadi Police Station, Kannur ``` ``` ------------------ ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED :-`** ``` SAJITH KUMAR M.V., AGED 42 YEARS S/O.PADMANABHAN, MEETHALE VEEDU, ARYAMVELLI (H), NEAR MADAYIKKAVU, ERIPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 303 ``` ``` BY ADVS. B.MUHAMMED SHAHEEL KEERTHI VIJAYAN JYOTHI R. NAIR FEBA MARY THOMAS ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE :-`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031 ``` ``` BY SMT.SEETHA S., SR.PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 6162 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 2 :- ``` ## **O R D E R** ## **Dated this the 2 nd day of August, 2024** The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS', for short), by the sole accused in Crime No.227/2024 of the Payangadi Police Station, Kannur, which is registered against him, for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody 24.06.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that; in May, 2019, the accused had induced the de facto complainant that he would arrange him an employment Visa in Spain and received Rs.6,81,890/- on different dates. However, the accused did not arrange the Visa or return the money to the de facto complainant. Thus, the accused has committed the above offence. ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 6162 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 3 :- ``` 3. Heard; Sri.B.Muhammed Shaheel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. There is no material to substantiate that the petitioner has committed the above offence. In fact, the petitioner was arrested in various other crimes and had undergone judicial custody for more than two months. It was after that the petitioner's arrest was recorded in the present crime on 24.06.2024. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 47 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner's further detention may not be necessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the petitioner is a habitual ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 6162 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 4 :- ``` offender. There are numerous cases registered against the petitioner by various police stations in the State for cheating several persons. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing a similar offence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that; he induced the de facto complainant to pay him Rs.6,81,890/- on the assurance of securing an employment Visa in Spain. However, the petitioner did not secure the Visa or return the money to the de facto complainant. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 47 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. 7. It is well settled in **Hussainara Khatoon (I)** v. **Home Secy., State of Bihar** [(1980) 1 SCC 81], that merely because a person has an antecedent, the same shall not be treated as a ground to deny bail to that person. 8. In **Dataram Singh** v. **State of U.P.,** [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 6162 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 5 :- ``` grant of bail is the 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. In **State of Kerala** v. **Raneef** [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has declared 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. 10. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception is the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society. 11. On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 6162 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 6 :- ``` on record, particularly on considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 47 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the firm view that the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the application, but subject to conditions. 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, 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 second Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed; - (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 them from disclosing such facts ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 6162 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 7 :- ``` 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) 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. - (v) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be filed and entertained before the court below. - (vi) 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** Jvt/2.8.2024 ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 6162 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 8 :- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL.6162/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES :-`** ``` Annexure A1TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11-06-2024 IN BAIL APPL.3786/2024 ON HIGH COURT ``` ``` Annexure A2THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE, PAYYANNUR IN C.M.P NO. 4889/2024 DATED 12.07.2024 ``` ``` Annexure A3TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 227/2024 OF PAZHAYANGADI POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT ``` ``` Annexure A4THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 15.01.2024 IN BAIL NOS. 11567 OF 2023, 11569 OF 2023, 11570 OF 2023,11573 OF 2023,11572 OF 2023 AND 11578 OF 2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT Annexure A5THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1338/2023 OF PAZHAYANGADI POLICE STATION DATED 13/12/2023 ```