Allowed

Sanjayajith v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Feb 2021Bail Appl./781/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC. Court noted the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Granted bail contingent on appearance for interrogation and adherence to health guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed subject to conditions including appearance for interrogation, bond execution, and adherence to social distancing guidelines.

Sanjayajith Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 15TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.781 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.1481/2019 OF Thodupuzha Police Station, Idukki

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

SANJAYAJITH AGED 23 YEARS KOONAMANGAL HOUSE MANIYAR P.O. PADAYANIPARA PATHANAMTHITTA. PIN-689662

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN-682031

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU.S.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

B.A.No.781 of 2021 2

¶15

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶16

B.A.No.781 of 2021

¶17

Dated this the 4^th day of February, 2021

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal

¶20

Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

¶21

Petitioner is the 1^st accused in Crime No.1481 of 2019

¶22

of Thodupuzha Police Station. The above case is registered

¶23

against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable

¶24

under Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 IPC.

¶25

3.The prosecution case is that the accused person with an intention to cheat the de facto complainant offered that they would make arrangement for M.B.B.S admission for her daughter at Al-Azar Medical College, Thodupuzha and received an amount of Rs.57,50,000/- on different dates and returned only Rs.15,00,000/-. Hence it is alleged that the petitioner

¶26

and the other accused committed the offence.

¶27

B.A.No.781 of 2021 3

¶28

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public

¶29

Prosecutor.

¶30

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted in toto, the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC is not made out. The counsel also submitted that as per Annexure-AIII order, this Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer for questioning and the petitioner already complied the same. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary.

¶31

6.The Public Prosecutor conceded that the other accused were already released on bail by this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Public Prosecutor submitted that as per common order dated 20.1.2021 in B.A.No.6023 of 2020, 6041 of 2020 and 7064 of 2020 some of the accused were released on bail. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that the bail application of one of the accused was dismissed. The Public Prosecutor also submitted that, the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer as directed by this Court.

¶32

7.After hearing both sides and considering the fact that

¶33

B.A.No.781 of 2021 4

¶34

the other accused are already released on bail, there is no justification in denying bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. I also considered the fact that the petitioner already surrendered before the Investigating Officer for questioning as per the direction of this Court.

¶35

Moreover, considering the need to follow social distancing norms inside prisons so as to avert the spread of the novel Corona Virus Pandemic, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo

¶36

Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020) and a Full Bench of this Court in W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020 issued various salutary directions for minimizing the number of inmates inside prisons.

¶37

Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement

¶38

(2019 (16) SCALE 870), after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule

¶39

B.A.No.781 of 2021 5

¶40

and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.

¶41

Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:

¶42

The petitioner shall appear before the

¶43

Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation.

¶44

After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he

¶45

shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned.

¶46

The petitioner shall appear before the

¶47

Investigating Officer for interrogation as and

¶48

B.A.No.781 of 2021 6

¶49

when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise 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.

¶50

Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

¶51

Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused,

¶52

or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶53

The petitioner shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic.

¶54

B.A.No.781 of 2021 7

¶55