Sreejesh v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **MONDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1946** **BAIL APPL. NO. 2742 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.1246/2023 OF Medical College Police Station,** **Thiruvananthapuram** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.858 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** **PETITIONER/S:** **SREEJESH AGED 36 YEARS S/O.SREEDHARAN, KALARIKKAL VEEDU, NEAR POOKODE BHAGAVATHIKKAVU TEMPLE, VATTANATHRA P.O., MANNAM- PETTA DESOM, 6TH WARD, KARALAMVILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680302** **BY ADV PAUL VARGHESE SRAMBICAL** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR PP SMT SEETHA S** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 2742 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.1246/2023 of the Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused (six in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs.465, 466, 468, 471, 420, 120B and 170 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC'). The petitioner was arrested on 23.02.2024. 2. The gravamen of the prosecution case is that: the accused 1 to 4 formed a WhatsApp group for job aspirants and the 1[st] and 3[rd] accused impersonating themselves as police officers and an official of the Public Service Commission's (P.S.C.), contacted the aspirants through the mobile phone in the name of the 3[rd] accused and assured them jobs. Thereafter, as per the script prepared by the 1[st] accused, the 5[th] accused by using the phone number provided by the 1[st] accused in his presence, conducted a mock interview among the members of the group. Again BAIL APPL. NO. 2742 OF 2024 3 representing themselves as the officials of the PSC, the accused collected a total amount of Rs.88/- lakh from the aspirants and credited the money to the bank account of the 2[nd] accused, who is the wife of the 3[rd] accused. Subsequently, the amounts were transferred from the account of the 2[nd] accused to the account of the 3[rd] accused. Thus, the accused have committed the above offence. 3. Heard; Sri.Paul Varghese Srambical, 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 alleged against the petitioner will not be attracted. In any given given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 23.02.2024 pursuant to Annexure B order passed by this Court. The investigation in BAIL APPL. NO. 2742 OF 2024 4 the case is 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 investigation is in progress. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that the accused in furtherance of their common intention had impersonated themselves as Police officials and PSC, and collected an amount of Rs.88/- lakh from the defacto complainants. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 7. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,** [2012 1 SCC 40], the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the BAIL APPL. NO. 2742 OF 2024 5 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 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. 2742 OF 2024 6 concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 10. On an anxious 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 23.02.2024, which is 45 days, 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.1,00,000/- (Rupees On 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: BAIL APPL. NO. 2742 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. 2742 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/08.04.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 2742 OF 2024 9 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2742/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.795/2024 DATED 18.3.2024 CJM,COURT TRIVANDRUM Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.2.2024. IN BAIL APPLICATION NO. 858/20204 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT Annexure 3 ORDER DATED 12-02-2024 IN BAIL APPL.858/2024 ON HIGH COURT**