Muhammed Kasim H K vs Union Territory Of Lakshadweep

K.Babu, J

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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

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

(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.

(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 till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

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