Sini Manjesh and Manjesh v. State of Kerala & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.4180 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.44/2020 OF CHOTTANIKKARA POLICE STATION , Ernakulam** ## **PETITIONERS/A2 & A5:** **1 SINI MANJESH AGED 38 YEARS W/O.MANJESH, RESIDING @ KOCHUMALAYIL HOUSE, PANKODE POST, KOLENCHERI. 682311 2 MANJESH AGED 38 YEARS S/O.SUDHAKARAN, RESIDING @ KOCHUMALAYIL HOUSE, PANKODE POST, KOLENCHERI.** **BY ADVS. SRI.R.KISHORE (KALLUMTHAZHAM) SMT.REVATHI A.K.** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031. 682031** - **2 CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER ERNAKULAM -682031.** - **3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ERNAKULAM - 682031.** - **4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHOTTANIKARA POLICE STATION, CHOTTANIKARA, ERNAKULAM- 682312.** BA 4180/2020 2 - **5 STATION HOUSE OFFICER PIRAVOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM - 682 314.** - **6 ADDL R6. A. P. SAHADEVAN AGED 59 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT EDAYILIL HOUSE, KAKKAD, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM - 682314.** **IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 03.08.2020 IN CRL. MA NO. 1 OF 2020 IN BA NO. 4180 OF 2020.** **R6 BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR R6 BY ADV. SMT.V.SHYLAJA SRI.C.V.PRABHAKARAN, PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.8.2020, THE COURT ON 24.11.2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** BA 4180/2020 3 ## **O R D E R** ## **Dated this the 24th day of November 2020** Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. The applicants are accused numbers 2 and 3 in Crime 44/2020 of the Chottanikara Police Station for having allegedly committed offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is this:The 1st applicant is the wife of the 2nd applicant. The 1st applicant is a politician and the leader of a party. The de facto complainant 6th respondent had approached the 1st accused seeking a job for his son Krishna Kumar in the Cochin Devaswom Board. He paid ₹ 8 lakhs to A2 and A5 in the presence of the other accused, in a room on top of Uduppi hotel. Accused numbers 1, 3 and 4 are employees of the Devaswom Board. The applicants would submit that the BA 4180/2020 4 recruitment to the Devaswom Board is through a recruitment board and it is not possible for any outsider to prove into the affairs of recruitment process. The 1st applicant was employed in the Krishibhavan on contract basis. She is also the Block President of a political party. She was earlier the State Secretary of the youth wing of the said political party. It is stated that the applicants had lent some money to the 1st accused which was agreed to be repaid within 2 months. After about an year and half he returned the borrowed money. There was a shortage of ₹ 50,000/-which he agreed would be paid within a week. That amount was paid in the presence of the de facto complainant, who was introduced as a friend of the 1st accused. After about a month the de facto complainant preferred a complaint before the Station House Officer, Chottanikara. After preliminary inquiry, the complainant was not found to be true and referred. Thereafter, the de facto complainant filed another complaint before the 3rd respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Police, without revealing the fate of the earlier complained. That BA 4180/2020 5 complaint was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Piravom and the same was registered as Crime 45/2020 and transferred to the Chottanikara Police station and the instant Crime was registered. According to the applicants, that procedure is not proper. They seek pre-arrest bail. 4. Heard the learned counsel appeaaring for the applicants and the de facto complainant, as also the learned Public Prosecutor. Records perused. 5. The learned counsel for the applicants would submit that there are no materials to prove an offence of cheating. The applicants have no criminal antecedents and hence they are entitled to anticipatory bail. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant and the Public Prosecutor submit that the investigation is still in a nascent stage, and releasing them on bail would affect the investigation adversly. 6. After hearing the submissions made on either sides and on perusal of the records produced, I find that the BA 4180/2020 6 applicants are politically influential and could interfere with the investigation. The allegations made against them are grave. 7. There are sufficient materials to indicate the involvement of the applicants in the alleged act of cheating the job seekers from the locality. Accused have political clout and using that clout they have made several persons believe that they would be able to provide them employment. The justification that is given by the accused and their applications are not readily acceptable. Custodial interrogation by the investigating officer would unravel many truths concerning the transactions that took place. Common citizens have great respect for the politicians who are able to help them to resolve their difficulties. In case the applicants are set at liberty without giving an opportunity to the investigating officer to interrogate them, it would definitely hamper the course of investigation. 8. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others [2010 KHC 4952 : 2011 (1) SCC 694] BA 4180/2020 7 ## it was held thus:- “122. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; ii. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; iv. The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. vii. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of S.34 and S.149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; viii. While considering the prayer for grant of BA 4180/2020 8 anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; ix. The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; x. Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.” 9. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited decision, there are no reasons available for the applicants to seek anticipatory bail in the instant case. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. [See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran (2007 (4) SCC 434), State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain (2008 (1) SCC 213), Union of BA 4180/2020 9 India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal (2008 (13) SCC 305) and Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 KHC 6886 : 2019 (9) SCC 24)]. Relying on the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no room for doubt that in the instant case, the applicants who are responsible for ensnaring guileless unemployed jobseekers to make payments in aspiration of getting employed, cannot be granted the benefit of the extraordinary remedy of anticipatory bail. The application is therefore to be dismissed. And I do so. **Sd/-** **ASHOK MENON** **JUDGE** jg