Sanoj.K v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946** **BAIL APPL. NO. 2484 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.130/2024 OF Shornur Police Station, Palakkad** **PETITIONER/S:** **SANOJ.K, AGED 43 YEARS COMPANYTHODI VEEDU, DHAVALAKKUZHI, MAYYANADB(PO), KOLLAM, PIN - 691303** **BY ADVS. G.RANJU MOHAN M.SANTHI (K/868/2011) SREEHARI M.B. THEERTHA NAIR A.P. SAREENA.S** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031** **SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 2484 OF 2024 2 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 3[rd] accused in Crime No.130/2024 of the Shornur Police Station, Palakkad, registered against the accused (three in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner was arrested on 15.03.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: between 03.01.2024 and 16.01.2024, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, induced the defacto complainant to transfer an amount of Rs.37,813/to them after making the defacto complainant believe that they would secure her an online employment. However, the accused failed to secure the employment or return the money. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. BAIL APPL. NO. 2484 OF 2024 3 3. Heard; Sri.G.Ranju Mohan, the 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. The offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC will not be attracted against the petitioner. The petitioner is only the 3[rd] accused. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 15.03.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents since he is involved in a case for BAIL APPL. NO. 2484 OF 2024 4 allegedly committing the offence under Section 380 of the IPC. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him tampering with the evidence and intimidating the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. On an evaluation of the materials placed on record, it can be gathered that the prosecution allegation is that the petitioner along with the other accused induced the defacto complainant to pay them Rs.37,813/- on the promise that they would secure her an online employment. However, they failed to secure the employment or return the money. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 15.03.2024. 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. 2484 OF 2024 5 presumption of innocence until a person is found guilty. Any imprisonment prior to conviction is to be considered as 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. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 2484 OF 2024 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 10. On a consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially on considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 15.03.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the 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. 2484 OF 2024 7 (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every 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 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; - (v) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to BAIL APPL. NO. 2484 OF 2024 8 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/11.04.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 2484 OF 2024 9 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2484/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure A1** **CERTIFIED COPY OF REGULAR BAIL APPLICATION DISMISSED BY THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, OTTAPALAM DATED 19-03-2024** **Annexure A2** **THE SCREENSHOT SENT BY THE 2ND ACCUSED TO THE PETITIONER REGARDING THE TRANSACTION DETAILS OF THE CYPTO CURRENCY TRADING CONTAINING ORDER NO. 1196790297018068992** **Annexure A3** **THE SCREENSHOT SENT BY THE 2ND ACCUSED TO THE PETITIONER REGARDING THE TRANSACTION DETAILS OF THE CYPTO CURRENCY TRADING CONTAINING ORDER NO. 1196790244580880384** **Annexure A4** **THE SCREENSHOT SENT BY THE 2ND ACCUSED TO THE PETITIONER REGARDING THE TRANSACTION DETAILS OF THE CYPTO CURRENCY TRADING CONTAINING ORDER NO. 1196789629737852928**