Justice K. Babu dismissed two bail applications filed by accused persons charged with corruption and misappropriation of funds. The court held that the failure to demonstrate a prima facie case and the grave nature of the offences precluded the grant of anticipatory bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1945
BAIL APPL. NO. 9052 OF 2023
CRIME NO.743/2023 OF Pulikeezhu Police Station, Pathanamthitta
PETITIONER:
SUJA P.K
AGED 49 YEARS
W/O PRADEEP M. K, MALAYITHRA, KALLUMKAL P.O, THIRUVALLA
NEDUMPURAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, KERALA,
PIN - 689102
BY ADVS.
C.S.MANU
DILU JOSEPH
C.A.ANUPAMAN
T.B.SIVAPRASAD
C.Y.VIJAY KUMAR
MANJU E.R.
ANANDHU SATHEESH
ALINT JOSEPH
PAUL JOSE
RESPONDENTS:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
REKHA,SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.12.2023, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..8919/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
[Bail Appl. Nos.9052/2023, 8919/2023]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1945
BAIL APPL. NO. 8919 OF 2023
CRIME NO.0743/2023 OF Pulikeezhu Police Station, Pathanamthitta
PETITIONER:
SHEENAMOL A
AGED 45 YEARS
W/O ANEESH M.I., MANGATTU HOUSE, NEDUMBRAM P.O.,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689110
BY ADVS.
K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
PINKU MARIAM JOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 6820312 STATION HOUSE OFFICER PULIKEEZHU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 6891043 AADHILA S KUDUMBASREE DISTRICT CO-ORDINATOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, THARAKANVILAYIL HOUSE, KADAKKADU, PANDALAM P.O., PANDALAM KURAMBALA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689501REKHA,SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.12.2023, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..9052/2023, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
[Bail Appl. Nos.9052/2023, 8919/2023]
K.BABU, J.
[Bail Appl. Nos.9052/2023, 8919/2023] -------------------------------------Dated this the 12th day of December, 2023
O R D E R
The petitioners are accused in crime No.743 of 2023 of Pulikeezhu Police Station, Pathanamthitta. The Petitioner in Bail Application No.9052 of 2023 is accused No.1. Accused No.3 is the petitioner in Bail Application No. 8919 of 2023. They are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 417 and 420 of IPC and Sections 13(1)(a) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Prosecution Case:
Accused No.1 is the Chairperson of Nedumbram Grama Panchayath Kudumbasree CDS. Accused No.3 is an accountant appointed on contractual basis by the C.D.S District Mission. During the period from 08.08.2021 to 31.08.2023 the petitioners syphoned off a sum of Rs.22,93,004/- from various Government funds. Amounts were transferred to the personal account maintained by accused No.1, from which a portion of the amount was transferred to the personal account maintained
[Bail Appl. Nos.9052/2023, 8919/2023]
4
by accused No.3. Accused Nos.1 and 2 jointly signed cash cheques for a sum of Rs.43,30,240/- which was intended to be used for various schemes of Kudumbasree. Accused No.1 encashed the amount covered by the cheques. Accused Nos.1 and 3 (petitioners herein) and the other accused misappropriated a total sum of Rs.69,14,664/- from the Government funds.
5
[Bail Appl. Nos.9052/2023, 8919/2023]
funds which was revealed in the audit conducted by District level Kudumbasree Audit team. The Case Diary reveals that the petitioners and other accused dishonestly misappropriated Government funds to the tune of Rs.69,14,664/-.
6
[Bail Appl. Nos.9052/2023, 8919/2023]
“In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.”
and the exact role of the accused;
7
[Bail Appl. Nos.9052/2023, 8919/2023]
(8) a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to free, fair and full investigation, and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
8
[Bail Appl. Nos.9052/2023, 8919/2023]
(10) frivolity in prosecution should always be
considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail. {Vide: Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565], Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat [(2016) 1 SCC 152] and Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. [(2020) 5 SCC 1]}.
In the present case, the alleged acts led to a loss to the public exchequer, but also, the common man is deprived of the benefits percolating under the various social welfare schemes
9
[Bail Appl. Nos.9052/2023, 8919/2023]
implemented by the Government through the Kudumbasree Mission.
The Bail Applications stand dismissed.
Sd/- K.BABU, JUDGE
saap
[Bail Appl. Nos.9052/2023, 8919/2023]
10
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 8919/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1TRUE COPY OF FIR NO.0743/2023 DATED. 21-
09-2023 OF PULIKEEZHU POLICE STATION,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
[Bail Appl. Nos.9052/2023, 8919/2023]
11
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 9052/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A-1TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 743 OF
2023 OF PULIKEEZHU POLICE STATION,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners accused of corruption and misappropriation of government funds.
Whether lack of requirement for custodial interrogation alone warrants granting anticipatory bail in serious conspiracy cases.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K.Explained¶46
Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K (2022 SCC Online SC 1529) · Who else cites this
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. v. State of PunjabReferred¶67
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565] · Who else cites this
Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of GujaratReferred¶67
Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat [(2016) 1 SCC 152] · Who else cites this
Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi)Referred¶67
Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. [(2020) 5 SCC 1] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Suja P.K.
Sheenamol A.
State of Kerala
K. Babu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court