Vipin Varghese 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 ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 2777 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.387/2024 OF ERNAKULAM SOUTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`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. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682015`** ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT NEEMA T V`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **B.A. No.2777 of 2024** ``` 2 ``` ## **Dated this the 9[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.387/2024 of the Ernakulam Town South Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against the accused (2 in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 r/w Section 24 of the Emigration Act. The petitioner was arrested on 10.3.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case, is that; the 1[st] accused is the owner and the 2[nd] accused is the Manager of an institution named ‘Kattoorans Institute of ``` 3 ``` ## **B.A. No.2777 of 2024** Technology’, which has no authorisation to recruit candidates for overseas employment. However, by suppressing these facts, the accused published an advertisement on the social media and received Rs.1,65,000/- from two ladies assuring them job as registered nurse at Italy. However, the accused did not arrange the job or return the money to the victims. The allegation of the de facto complainant is that, he had lost Rs.2000/- due to the overt act of the accused. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 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 due to the animosity of the de ``` 4 ``` ## **B.A. No.2777 of 2024** facto complainant. In fact, the alleged victims who have lost Rs.1,65,000/- have not given any complaint to the police. Even going through the prosecution case, the de facto complainant has only lost Rs.2000/- i.e., the expenses incurred by him to meet the accused. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 30 days, 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 investigation is in progress. She also stated that the petitioner is an accused in Crime No.219/2024 registered by the Mannar Police against the accused for committing similar offences. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him interfering with the investigation. ``` 5 ``` ## **B.A. No.2777 of 2024** Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. On an evaluation of the prosecution allegation in the present crime, it can be seen that the de facto complainant allegedly lost Rs.2000/- due to the overt act of the accused. The fact remains that, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 10.3.2024, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. 7. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 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 ``` 6 ``` ## **B.A. No.2777 of 2024** 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 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; ``` 7 ``` ## **B.A. No.2777 of 2024** (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 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 ``` 8 ``` ## **B.A. No.2777 of 2024** 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/- ``` rmm/9/4/2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**