Allowed

Muhammed Kasim H K v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Kerala HC9 Nov 2022Bail Appl./8723/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the Kerala High Court allowed the bail application of Accused No. 3, who faced corruption and related charges. Considering various factors and legal precedents, the court released the petitioner on bail subject to specific conditions including a bond amount and appearance before the Investigating Officer.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearing before the Investigating Officer on Wednesdays, and not influencing prosecution witnesses.

Muhammed Kasim H K Vs Union Territory of Lakshadweep — Corruption | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 8723 OF 2022

¶6

(CRIME NO.20/2022 OF KAVARATTI POLICE STATION, UNION TERRITORY OF

¶7

LAKSHADWEEP)

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRMP 86/2022 OF DISTRICT COURT,

¶9

KAVARATHY

¶10

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:

¶11

MUHAMMED KASIM H K, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O SYED MUHAMMED, THAYAPPURA TT HOUSE,ANDROTH ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT LAKE VIEW APARTMENTS, ST VINCENT COLONY ROAD, KARIMPANA PALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006 BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV M.S.ANEER V.VINAY SARATH K.P. PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH ANILKUMAR C.R. AJIT G ANJARLEKAR

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶13

UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, REP BY STANDING COUNSEL OF LAKSHADWEEP, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 (CRIME NO 20/2022 OF KAVARATTI POLICE STATION, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP) BY ADVS. SRI. SAJITH KUMAR V,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATION THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A No.8723 of 2022

K.BABU, J.

B.A No.8723 of 2022

Dated this the 9^th day of November, 2022

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶21

The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.20/2022 of Kavaratti Police Station, Union Territory of Lakshadweep. This crime has been registered against the petitioner and the other accused alleging offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 120B, 464, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC and Rule 14 of the Laccadiv, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands (Restrictions on entry and Residence) Rules 1967.

¶22

Accused No.1 is an Officer of the Lakshadweep Administration. On verification of the bank account of accused No.1, it was revealed that he has received large sum of money from the petitioner/accused No.3 through a series of transactions in return for the favours done by him. Further, on verification of the file

¶23

B.A No.8723 of 2022

¶24

¶25

relating to the entry permit maintained by the office of the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), the authority for issuing permits, it was found that the petitioner had misused the Letterhead of the Bharatiya Janata Party and used his political influence for getting entry permits for his guests/tourists to stay at huts in Agatti/Kavaratti.

¶26

I have heard Sri. S.Rajeev, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.3 and Sri. Sajith Kumar.V, the learned Standing Counsel for the Lakshadweep Administration.

¶27

The Investigating Officer appeared in person and made available the case diary.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are baseless. The petitioner was only a facilitator for providing entry permits to the political leaders who visited Lakshadweep, as he was officiating as the General Secretary of the BJP Lakshadweep Unit.

¶29

The learned Standing Counsel for the Lakshadweep Administration opposed the bail plea of the petitioner on the ground that the release of the petitioner on bail may hamper further

¶30

B.A No.8723 of 2022

¶31

¶32

progress of the investigation. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the documents relating to the acquisition of the properties by the petitioner are to be obtained for the progress of the investigation.

¶33

The petitioner surrendered before the Trial Court on 26.10.2022. He has been in judicial custody since then.

¶34

The petitioner had earlier approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by moving B.A No.3854/2022. As per order dated 10.08.2022, the application seeking anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court. The petitioner was directed to surrender before the jurisdictional Court. The petitioner challenged the order of this Court before the Apex Court in S.L.P (Crl) No.7778/2022. As per order dated 14.10.2022, the Apex Court dismissed S.L.P (Crl) No.7778/2022.

¶35

While the application for anticipatory bail moved from the part of the petitioner was pending, this Court had directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation on 14.07.2022 and for a period of 3 days from 20.07.2022 to 22.07.2022. The prosecution thereafter filed an

¶36

B.A No.8723 of 2022

¶37

¶38

application seeking the custody of the petitioner. It is submitted by the Investigating Officer that the application seeking the custody of the petitioner was rejected by the Trial Court.

¶39

The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the further incarceration of the petitioner is not at all required as the prosecution had enough opportunity to interrogate the petitioner.

¶41

The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception has been well recognised by judicial pronouncements. This is the principle underlined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶42

There cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or cancelling bail.

¶43

{Vide: Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1978) 1 SCC 118] }.

¶44

The issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitised judicial process. Personal liberty, deprived when bail is refused, is too

¶45

B.A No.8723 of 2022

¶46

¶47

precious a value of our constitutional system recognised under Article 21 that the curial power to negate it is a great trust exercisable, not casually but judicially, with lively concern for the cost to the individual and the community. After all, personal liberty of an accused or convict is fundamental, suffering lawful eclipse only in terms of “procedure established by law” {Vide: Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. State [(1978) 1 SCC 240] }.

¶48

In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty {Vide: Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [(2012) 1 SCC 40] }.

¶49

Having considered the entire circumstances, including the stage of the investigation and the tenure of judicial custody

¶50

B.A No.8723 of 2022

¶51

¶52

undergone by the petitioner in the touchstone of the principles discussed above, I find that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on conditions.

¶53

In the result, the bail application is allowed as follows:

¶54

(a) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

¶55

(b) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Wednesdays between 10 A.M. and 11 A.M. for a period of three months or

¶56

till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

K.BABU, JUDGE

KAS

B.A No.8723 of 2022

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 8723/2022

¶63

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-I A COPY OF THE ORDER OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION DISPOSED OF BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN BA NO 3854/2022 DATED 10.08.2022 Annexure-II A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.10.2022 IN PASSED BY COURT OF SESSIONS, KAVARATTI UT OF LAKSHADWEEP IN CRL MP NO 86/2022

Muhammed Kasim H K v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Kasim H K v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh T Vs State of Kerala

Somji Prasad Vs State of Kerala

Aromal.S Vs State of Kerala

K.K.Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Ramla Vs Khadeeja

Royal Blue Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Kerala