Shiju M A v. State of Kerala; Shobha P v. State of Kerala (B.A. Nos. 5811/2024 & 5918/2024)

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5811 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.491/2024 OF KANNUR TOWN, KANNUR ``` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` SHIJU M A AGED 39 YEARS MARUNADIYAN ( CHERUKKINIYAN HOUSE ) KANDOTH P.O., KIZHAKKEKOVVAL, KANDOTHARA, KOORMBA TEMPLE, PAYYANNUR , KANNUR DISTRICT DISTRICT KERALA -, PIN – 670307 ``` ``` BY ADVS.RASMI NAIR T. HAREESH M.R.(K/1650/1999) ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 ``` ``` 2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION KANNUR -, PIN – 670002 ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` SR PP SMT SEETHA S ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.07.2024, ALONG WITH B.A.NO.5918/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` _B.A.No.5811&5918/2024_ _-:2:-_ ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS MONDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1946 ``` ## `BAIL APPL. NO. 5918 OF 2024` ``` CRIME NO.491/2024 OF KANNUR TOWN, KANNUR ``` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` SHOBHA.P. AGED 45 YEARS D/O.GOPALAN, PALIYERI HOUSE, CHEEMENI, NOW RESIDING AT ECHILAMPARA, PODIOTCHAL, KANNUR, PIN – 670307 ``` ``` BY ADVS.T.K.SANDEEP RESHMA VISWANATHAN SWETHA R. ``` ## `RESPONDENT:` ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.07.2024, ALONG WITH B.A.NO.5811/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` _B.A.No.5811&5918/2024_ _-:3:-_ _Dated this the 29[th] day of July, 2024_ ## **C O M M O N O R D E R** The applications are filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the accused Nos.1 & 2 in Crime No.491/2024 of the Kannur Town Police Station, Kannur, which is registered against them for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.05.2024. As the bail applications arise out of the same crime, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that; on 07.05.2024, at around 15.00 hours, the first accused gave five counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/denomination to a hotel named Surya Heritage in Kannur. The first accused was arrested for having dealt with the counterfeit currency. In the interrogation of _B.A.No.5811&5918/2024_ _-:4:-_ the first accused, he said that the counterfeit notes were given to him by the second accused. Consequently, a search was conducted in the house of the second accused and counterfeit notes of Rs.500/-, Rs.1000/- and Rs.2000/- denominations were seized from the house of the accused along with a laptop and printer. Thus, the accused have committed the above offence. 3. Heard; Smt.Rasmi Nair. T and Sri. T.K.Sandeep, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Smt. Seetha S. and Sri. C. S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutors. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. There is no material to substantiate that the petitioners have committed the offence. In any given case, the petitioners have been in _B.A.No.5811&5918/2024_ _-:5:-_ judicial custody for the last 80 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and recovery has been effected. Hence, the applications may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutors opposed the application. They submitted that the investigation in the case is in progress. They also submitted that the petitioners have committed a very heinous crime against the State in dealing with counterfeit currency notes. If the petitioners are let off on bail, there is every likelihood of them committing similar offences. Therefore, the applications may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioners is that; the second accused had given counterfeit currency of Rs.500/- denomination to the first accused, who in turn gave the currency to a hotel in Kannur. In the interrogation of the first accused, he confessed that it was the second accused who supplied the notes to him. Consequently, the house of the _B.A.No.5811&5918/2024_ _-:6:-_ second accused was searched, and counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/-, Rs.1000/- and Rs.2000/denominations were seized, along with a laptop and a colour printer. The fact remains that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 80 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and the recovery has been effected. 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 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 the rule and putting a person in jail is _B.A.No.5811&5918/2024_ _-:7:-_ 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 on 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. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, ## _B.A.No.5811&5918/2024_ _-:8:-_ and the materials placed on record, particularly considering the fact that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last 80 days, the investigation in the case is complete, and the recovery has been effected, I am of the firm view that the petitioners’ further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail applications, but subject to stringent conditions. In the result, the applications are allowed, by directing the petitioners to be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each 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 petitioners shall appear before the Officer on Investigating every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. They shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; _-:9:-_ ## _B.A.No.5811&5918/2024_ - (ii) The petitioners 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 court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; - (iii) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are on bail; - (iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If have no they - passports, they shall file affidavits 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 _B.A.No.5811&5918/2024_ _-:10:-_ 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 petitioners even while the petitioners are 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/29.07.24 //True copy// P.A. To Judge