High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-02-14Petition allowed; bail granted to the second ac...

Saleelkumar v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BA 948 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-02-14
Court Decision / Holding: The application is allowed. The petitioner Saleelkumar is directed to be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. Conditions imposed: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer as required; (ii) refrain from inducing or tampering with witnesses; (iii) shall not commit any offence while on bail; (iv) surrender of any passport or file an affidavit if none; (v) court may cancel bail for violation of conditions; (vi) court below may modify or delete bail conditions; (vii) Investigating Officer may continue investigations and effect recoveries while on bail per established holdings (including Sushila Aggarwal). The order reflects reliance on statutory rights under 167(2) CrPC, as well as supporting case law; final report not laid within the statutory time frame.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; bail granted to the second accused with specified bond and sureties, and standard conditions; investigation may proceed; potential cancellation/modification of bail if conditions breached.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Saleelkumar

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, EOW, Thrissur Unit

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Saiby Jose Kidangoor
• Benny Antony PareL
• Anoop Sebastian
• Pramitha Augustine
• Adithya Kiran V.E
• Adrisya S.
• Jefria Mariam

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri C S Hrithwik

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC by the second accused, Saleelkumar, in Crime No. 42/2023 of the Thrissur East Police Station (CB EOW TSR-47/2023) registered for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and Section 3 r/w 21, 5 r/w 23 of the BUDS Act. The petitioner was arrested on 15.12.2023 and has remained in judicial custody for about 60 days, with the final investigation report not yet laid. He seeks statutory bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC on the grounds of innocence, lack of involvement, and delay in investigation. The respondents concede the custody period but emphasize ongoing investigation and the accused’s alleged involvement in multiple crimes, arguing against bail. The court, however, places emphasis on the statutory entitlement to bail under 167(2) where the final report has not been laid within the prescribed time, citing decisions of higher courts. It notes that the first accused has already been granted bail in a related matter, underscoring parity. Relying on Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, Azharudheen v. State of Kerala, M. Ravindran v. DRI, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), the court reiterates that the right to bail is protected to the extent of statutory provisions, and that delay cannot justify indefinite detention. Consequently, the petition is allowed, granting bail subject to bonds, two sureties, and standard conditions, with a clear admonition on compliance and potential cancellation for violations. The investigating agency retains authority to pursue inquiries and recoveries while bail is in effect.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Proviso to Section 167(2) CrPCSections 406 and 420 IPCSection 3 r/w 21, 5 r/w 23 of the BUDS Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Presumption of innocence (embedded in the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC)
Expedition of investigation and expeditious trial as a facet of Article 21 rights
Absolute and indefeasible nature of statutory right to bail under 167(2) CrPC (as discussed in jurisprudence cited)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the accused is innocent and falsely implicated, has been in judicial custody for about 60 days, and the investigation has not yet culminated in a final report. Relying on the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC, the petitioner seeks statutory bail on grounds that the offences are punishable for a period less than ten years and rights accrued, supported by Supreme Court and Kerala High Court precedent (Satender Kumar Antil; Azharudheen; M. Ravindran; Sushila Aggarwal). It was contended that delay is not attributable to the accused and that bail should be granted to preserve the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial while ensuring proper conditions. The first accused in a related matter has already been granted bail, indicating parity and a consistent approach.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contended that the accused are involved in multiple crimes and the investigation remains open, with no final report yet laid. They argued that releasing the accused at this stage could impede ongoing inquiries and recovery efforts. While acknowledging the 60-day custody period, they emphasized that public interest and the gravity of alleged offences justify continued detention until the investigation is complete. They cited the need to maintain the integrity of the investigative process and the potential risk of tampering or evading accountability, urging the court to refuse bail or impose stringent conditions if granted.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation	[(2022) 10 SCC 51]	Positive	Expounds that 167(2) aims to expeditiously complete investigations; presumption of innocence and right to bail are protected; delays may entitle an accused to statutory bail.
Azharudheen v. State of Kerala	(2024 (1) KHC 309)	Positive	Hold that once the statutory right accrues, an oral application can suffice to enlarge on bail.
M. Ravindran v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence	[(2021) 2 SCC 485]	Positive	Right to bail cannot be denied even in unforeseen circumstances (e.g., pandemic); supports expeditious investigation.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	[2020 (1) KHC 663]	Positive	Affirms that Investigating Officer can continue inquiry and effect recoveries while on bail; supports court’s exercise of 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 Saleelkumar 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 ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 25TH MAGHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 948 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.42/2023 OF TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP 7311/2023 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT(ADHOC) III, THRISSUR ``` ## **`PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:`** ``` SALEELKUMAR AGED 43 YEARS S/O SIVADASAN V.A,VELLARIKKATT HOUSE, PALAYUR, CHAVAKKAD, NOW RESIDING AT KAVIL HOUSE,SARA60A, STREET NO: 3, ACHUTHAPURAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680581 ``` ``` BY ADVS. SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR BENNY ANTONY PAREL ANOOP SEBASTIAN PRAMITHA AUGUSTINE ADITHYA KIRAN V.E ADRISYA S. JEFRIA MARIAM ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` 2THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CRIME BRANCH, EOW, THRISSUR UNIT, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001 ``` ``` BY SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B. A. No. 948 of 2024 2 Dated this the 14[th] day of February, 2024 ## **ORDER** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the second accused in Crime No.42/2023 of the Thrissur East Police Station (CB EOW TSR - 47/2023) Thrissur, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 r/w 21, 5 r/w 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act (BUDS Act). The petitioner was arrested on 15.12.2023. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: the accused 1 and 2, being the Managing Director and the Director of a company named “Safe and Strong Business Consultancy Pvt.Ltd.”, in violation of the provisions of the Act, received Rs.2,00,000/- from the defacto complainant and failed to pay any profit or return any B. A. No. 948 of 2024 3 amount. Thus, the accused have committed the above offence. 3. Heard; Sri.Saiby Jose Kidangoor, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C.S Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 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. Notwithstanding other contentions that have been raised in the bail application, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 60 days. The investigation in the case is not complete, and the final report has not been laid. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on statutory bail in view of the proviso to Sub Section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code', for short). Moreover, the first accused has been released on bail by this Court as per the order in B. A. No. 948 of 2024 4 B.A.No.3051/2023 and connected cases. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He contended that since the accused have been involved in many crimes, the investigation in the case is still in progress. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 60 days and that the final report has not been laid. He also admitted to the fact that the first accused has been released on bail by this Court as per the order in B.A.No.3051/2023 and connected cases. 6. Indisputably, the petitioner was arrested on 15.12.2023. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable for a period of less than ten years. The final report has not been laid. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to compulsive bail as contemplated under the proviso to Sub Section (2) of Section 167 of the Code. B. A. No. 948 of 2024 5 ## 7. Dealing with an identical issue the Honourable Supreme Court in **Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation** [(2022) 10 SCC 51], has held in the following manner: “39. S.167(2) was introduced in the year 1978, giving emphasis to the maximum period of time to complete the investigation. This provision has got a laudable object behind it, which is to ensure an expeditious investigation and a fair trial, and to set down a rationalised procedure that protects the interests of the indigent sections of society. This is also another limb of Art.21. Presumption of innocence is also inbuilt in this provision. An investigating agency has to expedite the process of investigation as a suspect is languishing under incarceration. Thus, a duty is enjoined upon the agency to complete the investigation within the time prescribed and a failure would enable the release of the accused. The right enshrined is an absolute and indefeasible one, inuring to the benefit of suspect. 40.Such a right cannot be taken away even during any unforeseen circumstances, such as the recent pandemic, as held by this Court in M. Ravindran v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [(2021) 2 SCC 485] ………………..” ## 8. This Court in **Azharudheen V. State of Kerala** **(2024 (1) KHC 309)** has held that once the statutory right of the accused accrues, even an oral application is sufficient to enlarge him on bail. 9. On an overall consideration of the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that B. A. No. 948 of 2024 6 the final report was not laid within the stipulated time period, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be released on statutory bail as contemplated under Section 167(2) of the Code. 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 jurisdictional Court, which shall be subject to the following conditions: - (i) The petitioner shall 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 them from disclosing such facts to the jurisdictional Court or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; 7 B. A. No. 948 of 2024 - (iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail; - (iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the jurisdictional Court 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; - (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 B. A. No. 948 of 2024 8 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** mtk/14.02.24 B. A. No. 948 of 2024 9 ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 948/2024`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` ANNEXURE ATRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO: 42/2023 DATED 04.01.2023 OF THE THRISUR EAST POLICE STATION ``` ``` ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL. M P NO: 7311/2023 DATED 10.01.2024 OF THE HONOURABLE 3RD ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR ``` ``` ANNEXURE C. TRUE COPY OF THE MRI REPORT DATED 09.10.2017 FROM ELITE MISSION HOSPITAL, KOORKKENCHERY, THRISSUR ```