Dr.Maya Raj vs State Of Kerala

K.Babu, J.

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

The petitioner is the accused in VC No.12/2022 of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Idukki. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 7(a) and 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.

The prosecution case is that the petitioner/accused, a Doctor by profession, demanded and accepted Rs.5,000/- as bribe from the de facto complainant. On 22.12.2022 at 6.20 p.m., the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau arrested the accused while receiving the bribe amount.

The petitioner was arrested and produced before the jurisdictional Court and has been in judicial custody since then.

Heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  and  the learned Special Government Pleader (Vigilance).

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the allegations levelled against her. It is further submitted that the investigation is almost in the final stage.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioner.

The materials placed before the Court would reveal that the investigation is almost in the final stage.

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.

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

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 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]}.

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]}.

Having regard to the stage of the investigation and the tenure of judicial custody undergone by the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on conditions.

In the result, the Bail Application is allowed as follows:

(a) The petitioner shall be released on bail on her executing bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

(b) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

(c) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating agency.

(d) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or attempt to tamper with the evidence.