Prasannan vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused in crime No.56/2023 of the Ernakulam Town North Police Station, registered against the accused (three in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs.406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 11.01.2024.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that: the accused, who are members of the Cheranalloor Service Co-operative Bank, had on 03.01.2024, 04.01.2024 and 06.01.2024 pledged spurious gold ornaments weighing 124.2 grams with the bank and dishonestly received Rs.1,92,500/-. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.B.R.Muraleedharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Nima Jacob, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. Even if the allegations in the FIR are taken on its face value, it will not constitute an offence alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 11.01.2024, which is more than 34 days. The investigation in the case, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, is practically complete. The recovery has been effected. The petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that the accused 2 and 3 are still at large. The investigation is in progress. If the petitioner is let off on bail, there is every likelihood of him intimidating the witnesses and tampering with evidence. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 34 days and that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, [(2012) 1 SCC 40], the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence until a person is found guilty. Any imprisonment prior to conviction is to be considered as a punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct.

In Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is a rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. Even though the grant of bail is entirely the discretion of the court, it has to be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of each case and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner.

Subsequently,  in  State  of  Kerala  v.  Raneef, [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has again held that undertrial prisoners detained in jail for indefinite periods, without any sufficient reason or due to the delay in concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the materials placed on record, rival submissions across the Bar, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 11.01.2024, that the investigation in the case, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, is practically complete, that the recovery has been effected, that merely because accused 2 and 3 have not been apprehended, the same cannot be a ground to deny bail to the petitioner, I am of the definite view that the petitioner's continued detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application.

In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing 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 court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of two months or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;

(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail;

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;

(v) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.

(vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below.

(vii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioners even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].