Aneesh A.J vs State Of Kerala

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J

These Bail Application are filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code .

The petitioner in these bail applications is one and the same and therefore I am disposing of these bail applications by a common order. The petitioner is accused in Crime No.1356/2022 of Njarakkal Police Station, Crime No.230/2023 of Punnapra Police Station, Crime No.36/2023 of Kaduthuruthi Police Station, Crime No. 765/2022 of Aroor Police Station and Crime No.1347/2022 of Njarakkal Police Station. All these cases are registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

The prosecution case is that, the petitioner who is arrayed as second accused in the above cases promised the respective de facto complainants in these cases job in Russia and collected huge amount. It is alleged that the petitioner committed cheating. Similar type of allegations are there in all these bail applications. The petitioner is in custody in these cases.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out. It is also submitted the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grants him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The main allegation is that the de facto complainants paid huge amount for getting job in a foreign country and the petitioner has not arranged the job. Why the victims in these cases paid amount to the petitioner, when admittedly the petitioner is not a authorised recruiting agency, is not clear.

In Archana Rana v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2021) 3 SCC 750], the Apex Court observed that giving money to get job will not amounts to the offence under Section 420 IPC. Whether the principle laid down in the above case is applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case, is a matter to be investigated. The indefinite detention of the petitioner may not be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner can be released on bail in stringent conditions.

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

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:

Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a 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.

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and 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.

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

Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.