Yousaf Abdulla Sahid v. State of Kerala and Station House Officer, Info Park Police Station, Kakkanad

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 3RD VAISAKHA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 2662 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.244/2024 OF Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam PETITIONER/S: ``` ``` YOUSAF ABDULLA SAHID, AGED 20 YEARS S/O ABDULLA SAHID HASSAN,ABDULLA MANZIL, AVIKKARA,HOSDURG, KASARGODE, PIN - 671315 ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.M.BINDHUMOL N.P.RUKSANA ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2STATION HOUSE OFFICER, INFO PARK POLICE STATION, KAKKANAD,REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` sr pp Smt Neema T.V ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 Bail Application No. 2662 of 2024 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** ## **======================** ## **Bail Application No. 2662 of 2024** **-----------------------------------** Dated this the 23[rd] 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 sole accused in Crime No.244/2024 of the Info Park Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against the accused, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 384 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner was arrested on 7.3.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that; the accused, in furtherance of their common intention to make unlawful gain for them and wrongful loss to the de facto complainant, called the de facto complainant on his mobile number claiming to be Officers of the Delhi Police and informed him that there were certain illegal transactions 3 Bail Application No. 2662 of 2024 seen in his bank account in the HDFC Bank, and in order to exonerate from his liability and to legalise his funds through RBI supervision, they induced the de facto complainant to transfer an amount of Rs.19,90,000/- to the bank account of the accused. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Smt.P.M Bindhumol, 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. There is no material to show that the petitioner had received any money. The petitioner is a student and sole bread winner of his family. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 7.3.2024, 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. 4 Bail Application No. 2662 of 2024 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that investigation in the case is in progress. There is incriminating material to show the involvement of the petitioner in the crime. If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is every likelihood of him intimidating the witnesses and sabotaging the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. On an evaluation of the materials placed on record, the principal allegation against the accused is that they allegedly made the de facto complainant transfer an amount of Rs.19,90,000/- to the bank account assuring him to legalise his money. However, the accused misappropriated the money. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last forty five days, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. 7. 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 5 Bail Application No. 2662 of 2024 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 the 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 concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 10. In **Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar** [(1980) 1 SCC 81], the Honourable Supreme Court while dealing with a case of under trials, who suffered long incarceration, held that the procedure that keeps large 6 Bail Application No. 2662 of 2024 number of people behind the bars without trial for long is unreasonable and unfair, and is not in conformity with the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 11. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception is on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Once the charge sheet is filed, a strong case has to be made out for continuing a person in judicial custody. The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society. 12. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 45 days, the investigation in the case is 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, 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 7 Bail Application No. 2662 of 2024 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: (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. 8 Bail Application No. 2662 of 2024 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 petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sushila** 9 Bail Application No. 2662 of 2024 ## **Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1)** ## **KHC 663].** **sd/-** sks/23/4/2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**