High CourtsSingle Bench

Sanal K Sathyan vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 1 March 2021 · Citation: (2021) 03 KL CK 0007

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Menon, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120(B)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 1894 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

25 paragraphs · 510 words
1.

Application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is first accused in VC No.03/2021 of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau,

Thrissur for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 r/w Section

120B IPC.

2.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant had demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/- from the de facto complainant for allegedly

obtaining a building completion report from the 2nd accused, who was the Overseer of Choodal Grama Panchayat. Accordingly, on 16.02.2021 at

about 5 p.m. on information being passed by the de facto complainant to the Vigilance officer, a trap was made and the applicant who had come in his

car bearing registration No. KL 46 G 2871 parked it near Sankara Shopping Complex at Kecheri, in front of Janananma Hi-tech Laboratory. The de

facto complainant handed over a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the applicant and he was caught red handed by the officials and thereby committed the

offence. The applicant has been in judicial custody since his apprehension.

3.

The applicant states that the allegations are not true. He is only a contractor and that he had induced the de facto complainant to deliver a sum of

Rs.25,000/- for the purpose of influencing the Overseer of the Grama Panchyat for issuance of the certificate is not true. The applicant has no

criminal antecedents. He has been in custody since his arrest and therefore seeks regular bail.

4.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Vigilance Department.

5.

It is submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the investigation is still at its infancy and therefore further documents have to be

collected for the purpose of evidence in connection with this crime. Therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail.

The applicant was apprehended on 16.02.2021 and has been in custody since then. His interrogation is already over. Further custodial interrogation

may not be required. There is no insistence on that by the learned Public Prosecutor. The applicant has admittedly no criminal antecedents also. The

documents pertaining to this crime is all available with the Panchayat and the 2nd accused and therefore further detention of the applicant may not be

required. Hence the application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh

only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and on following conditions:-

(i) He shall appear before the investigating officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of two months or till the filing of final

report whichever is earlier.

(ii) He shall not get involved in similar cases during the currency of the bail.

(iii) He shall not tamper with evidence, intimidate or influence the witnesses .

In case of violation of the bail conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.