Vipin Varghese v. State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 3747 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.219/2024 OF MANNAR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: ``` ``` VIPIN VARGHESE, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. VARGHESE, KATTOOR, VIPIN VILLA, KOZHIMALA P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689541 ``` ``` BY ADVS. B.PRAMOD BIJU VIGNESWAR ATHUL M.V. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANNAR POLICE STATION,ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689622`** ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`SR PP SMT NEEMA T V`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. No.3747 of 2024** ``` 2 ``` ## **Dated this the 20[th] day of May, 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.219/2024 of the Mannar Police Station, Alappuzha, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was originally arrested in Crime No. 387/2024 of the Ernakulam Town South Police Station on 10.3.2024 and his arrest was recorded in the present crime on 09.04.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that; ``` 3 ``` ## **B.A. No.3747 of 2024** the accused 1 and 2, in furtherance of their common intention, made the de facto complainant and others believe that they would extend job opportunities to them in Canada and New Zealand. Consequently, they received Rs.15,00,000/- from the de facto complainant. However, they failed to secure the employment for the de facto complainant or return his money. Thus, the accused have committed the above offence. 3. Heard; Sri.B.Pramod, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 10.3.2024 and his arrest was recorded in the present **B.A. No.3747 of 2024** ``` 4 ``` crime on 9.4.2024. The investigation in the case is practically 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 petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents. The petitioner is involved in Crime No.387/2024 of the Ernakulam Town South Police Station and Crime No.479/2021 of the Chenngannur Police Station for committing similar offences. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. On an evaluation of the prosecution allegation, it can be gathered that the petitioner along with the second accused had offered employment to the de facto complainant in the year 2018. However, the crime is ``` 5 ``` ## **B.A. No.3747 of 2024** seen registered in year 2024. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 10.3.2024. By Annexure A2 order, this Court has already enlarged the petitioner on bail in Crime No.387/2024. Since the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 70 days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected, 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.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 Monday between 9 a.m. ``` 6 ``` ## **B.A. No.3747 of 2024** 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 not already surrendered his passport pursuant to the order in Annexure A2. If he has ``` 7 ``` ## **B.A. No.3747 of 2024** surrendered his passport as per the order in Annexure A2, 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.3747 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/-** **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** rmm/20/5/2024