Sujith P v. State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 2565 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.178/2024 OF Vadakkancherry Police Station, Palakkad ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1:`** ``` SUJITH.P AGED 34 YEARS S/O.SUBRAMANYAN, KOLALITHARA VEEDU, KARUVANTHIRUTHI VILLAGE, FAROOQ POST, KOZHIKKODE, PIN - 673632 ``` ``` BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SR PP SMT NEEMA T V ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. No.2565 of 2024** ``` 2 ``` ## **Dated this the 4[th] day of April, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the first accused in Crime No.178/2024 of the Vadakkancherry 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 and Section 66 (D) of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner was arrested on 14.03.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: the accused, in furtherance of their intention, published an advertisement offering work at home vacancies and made the defacto complainant send an amount of Rs.1,93,000/- to their bank account through Phone-Pay. ``` 3 ``` ## **B.A. No.2565 of 2024** The accused did not arrange any work or return the money. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. V.A. Johnson, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Neema. T.V. the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. A reading of the First Information Report would substantiate that the petitioner was not named in the FIR. Subsequently, the petitioner was implicated in the crime only because he was the employee of the other accused, who are Maharashtrians. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 14.03.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete, and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner is ``` 4 ``` ## **B.A. No.2565 of 2024** entitled to the benefit of a similar order. Moreover, the petitioner is a person without any criminal antecedents. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. She also stated that the other accused have to be apprehended. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 14.03.2024 and he does not have criminal any antecedents. 6. On an analysis of the facts, it can be seen that the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, allegedly deceived the defacto complainant and made him pay an amount of Rs.1,93,000/- on the assurance that they would provide a work at home job. However, they failed to provide the job and also did not return the money. ``` 5 ``` ## **B.A. No.2565 of 2024** 7. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the materials placed on record, and the rival submissions made across the Bar, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 14.03.2024, that the investigation in the case, so far as the petitioner is concerned, is practically complete and recovery has been effected, and further that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, I am of the definite 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: ## **B.A. No.2565 of 2024** ## **`6`** (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of one month or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. 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 ``` 7 ``` ## **B.A. No.2565 of 2024** 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 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 ``` 8 ``` ## **B.A. No.2565 of 2024** 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/-** mtk/04.04.24 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**