Manoj L vs State Of Kerala

C. Jayachandran, J

This is an application for regular bail preferred by the 1st accused in V.C.No.9/2024 of the V.A.C.B., Idukki. The offences alleged are under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and also under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution would allege that the petitioner/A1 made a visit to one 'Panoramic Get Away' Resort at Chithirapuram, Idukki, of which the defacto complainant is the Manager, on 27.09.2024 and conducted an inspection of the sewage treatment plant and kitchen. Pointing out certain anomalies, the petitioner/A1 wanted the Manager to meet him at his office on 05.10.2024. Accordingly, the defacto complainant/Manager met the petitioner/A1, on which date, the petitioner demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.1,00,000/- to hush up the alleged anomalies detected. The demand was repeated on 07.10.2024 over phone to the defacto complainant, on which date, the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.75,000/-. The same was directed to be paid via google pay to the account of the 2nd accused. Thereupon, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the Vigilance team on 07.10.2024. After completing the formalities, a trap was laid and the mobile phone of the 2nd accused, which evidenced the receipt of money through google pay account, was recovered and seized. Based on the version of the 2nd accused that the amount has been received on behalf of and as instructed by the 1st accused, both the accused persons were arrested on 09.10.2024, itself. The accused persons have thus committed the offences enumerated above, according to the prosecution.

Heard Sri. Vijayabhanu P., learned Senior Counsel, duly instructed by Sri.Thomas J. Anakkallunkal and Sri.A.Rajesh learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance). Perused the records.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been in custody for the past more than 15 days, he having been arrested on 09.10.2024. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that bail has already been granted to the 2nd accused by the Special Court and that the custody of petitioner/A1 has not been sought so far by the Investigating Agency. According to the learned counsel, no useful purpose is to be served by incarcerating the petitioner any more. It was pointed out that the nature of the evidence is essentially electronic, which has already been seized. Learned Senior Counsel would ensure that the petitioner will co-operate with the investigation in all respects, including for the purpose of collection of voice sample. On such premise, the petitioner seeks himself to be enlarged on bail.

This application was seriously opposed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance). It was pointed out that, the conversation between the petitioner and the defacto complainant made on 07.10.2024 has been recorded, which contains the specific instruction of 1st accused to transfer the amount, via google pay, to the account of the 2nd accused. It was also pointed out that the Vigilance team is in receipt of another complaint against the petitioner/A1, which contains the similar set of allegations preferred by the owner of Hotel Al-Bhuhari at Munnar, in respect of which complaint, enquiry is going on. It is the submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the petitioner's modus operandi is to make visits to the business concerns, find out some anomalies, and demands bribes on that basis. It was also pointed out that the petitioner was suspended from service on the basis of a similar complaint, though the order of suspension was subsequently stayed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, release of the petitioner will be a potential threat, and there is every chance of repeating the offences.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court notice that the petitioner has been in the judicial custody for the past more than 15 days. It is relevant to take note that the petitioner's custody was not sought for by the Investigating team for the purpose of interrogation/investigation. A specific act which is required to be complied by the petitioner to aid the progress of the investigation is to obtain his voice sample, which the petitioner has agreed to co-operate fully. This Court, therefore, finds no reason to continue the petitioner's incarceration. As it is well settled, the purpose of custody can neither be deterrent nor punitive. The essential purpose should be to aid the investigation and also for the progress of the investigation. If the same is served, it is not within the realm of law to deprive bail, since bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

In the circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow the instant application, subject to the following conditions:

(1) The petitioner shall be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Special Court.

(2) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer once in a week, namely on saturdays, at 10.00 a.m. for a period of one month; and thereafter, once in two weeks, namely on alternate saturdays at 10.00 a.m. for a further period of one month; and thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer, in writing to do so.

(3) The petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offence while on bail.

(4) The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness.

(5) The petitioner shall not leave the State, except with the express permission of the Special Court, in writing.

It is clarified that, violation of any of the above conditions will enable the prosecutor to file necessary application for cancellation of bail before the Special Court, which will be considered by the learned Special Judge, in accordance with law.