Raphael vs State Of Kerala

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J

This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) .

Petitioner is one of the accused in Crime No.188 of 2024 of Mannarkkad Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others, alleging offences punishable under Sections 489(B) and (C) r/w 34 of IPC.

The prosecution case is that on 22.02.2024, at 12 hours, 121 counterfeit currencies of the 500 denomination was found in  possession  of  the  first  accused,  and  61  counterfeit currency notes were found in possession of the 2nd accused. It is submitted that in the investigation, it is revealed that, the 3rd accused distributed the counterfeit currencies to the 1st accused. The petitioner was arrested on 22.02.2024.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of the case, and he has not committed any offence. It is also submitted that he was arrested on 22.02.2024, and he is ready to abide any conditions if this Court releases him on bail.

The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submits that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious.

This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions, because the petitioner is in custody from 22.02.2024. A perusal of Annexure-A2 order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the bail application, it would not show that any criminal antecedents is there to the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody for almost 60 days. If the petitioner commits similar offences, the investigating officer can file appropriate application before the jurisdictional court and jurisdictional court can cancel the bail. With the above, condition, and also directing the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer twice in a week, this bail application is allowed.

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 he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 10 am for a period of sixty days or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

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.