SREENISH POOKKODAN v. STATE OF KERALA AND ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 1008 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.2957/2023 OF Ernakulam South Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT Bail Appl. 144/2024 OF HIGH COURT OF** ## **KERALA** ## **PETITIONER/S:** SREENISH POOKKODAN AGED 30 YEARS S/O.VELAYUDHAN, VADAKKUMURI HOUSE, KAVANOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673639 BY ADV BABU S. NAIR ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682016 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 1008 OF 2024 2 ## **O R D E R** The second bail application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.2957/2023 of the Ernakulam South Police Station, Ernakulam,registered against him for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(a) (c) and 5(1) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The petitioner was arrested on 21.12.2023. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: while the accused was working on contract basis with the Cochin Shipyard Limited during March, 2023 to 19.12.2023, he had with his mobile-phone taken the photographs of the defence ships and other ships, their maintenance, their position information, information on visits of VVIPs, information about various events inside the shipyard, which is determined as illegal, and transferred the information to the enemy country and the same is being used on a social media account of one Angel Payal. BAIL APPL. NO. 1008 OF 2024 3 Accordingly, the accused had shared the official secrets. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 3. Heard Sri.Babu S. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned 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. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.12.2023, which is more than 57 days. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. The petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. The petitioner hails from a financially backward family and has no criminal antecedents. The petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. He contended that the investigation is not complete. The Investigating Officer suspects a case of espionage. The Cyber Forensic Investigation is in BAIL APPL. NO. 1008 OF 2024 4 progress. If the petitioner is let off on bail, there is every likelihood of him fleeing from justice. Hence, the bail application may be dismissed. 6. The prosecution case is that while the petitioner was working on contract basis with the Cochin Shipyard Ltd., a High – Security and Sensitive Zone, had taken pictures on his mobile phone of sensitive and prohibited matters and had transferred the data to the social media account of one Angel Payal, which is in the enemy country of Pakistan. 7. Indisputably, the petitioner was arrested on 21.12.2023, which is more than 57 days. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. 8. 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 1008 OF 2024 5 Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct. 9. 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. 10. Subsequently, in **State of Kerala v. Raneef,** [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has again held 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. 11. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and taking into account the fact that the BAIL APPL. NO. 1008 OF 2024 6 petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.12.2023, that the investigation in the case is practically complete, that the has been effected and that the recovery petitioner has no criminal antecedents, I am of the firm view that the petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application, but subject to stringent conditions: 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 court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of three months or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; BAIL APPL. NO. 1008 OF 2024 7 - (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 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 consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in BAIL APPL. NO. 1008 OF 2024 8 accordance with law. - (vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be filed and entertained before 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/15.02.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 1008 OF 2024 9 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1008/2024** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED, 30-12-2023 IN C.M.P.NO.7990/2023 OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E.O), ERNAKULAM Annexure B ORDER DATED 17-01-2024 IN BAIL APPL.144/2024 ON HIGH COURT