Santhosh A.V vs State Of Kerala

R. Narayana Pisharadi, J

This is an application for bail filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

The petitioner is the first accused in the case registered as V.C.No.1/21/Kasaragod by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended by the Act 16 of 2018).

The prosecution case is as follows: The petitioner, the first accused in the case, was the Village Officer and the second accused was the Village Field Assistant in the Cheemeni Village Office. They demanded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the de facto complainant as bribe for taking steps in the application made by her for granting purchase certificate in respect of the fifty cents of land in her possession and enjoyment. The demand was finally reduced to Rs.25,000/-. The de facto complainant made a written complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of the VACB regarding the demand for bribe made by the accused. On the basis of that complaint, the case against the accused was registered. On 05.11.2021, the trap team led by the Dy.S.P, which included the de facto complainant, reached the Village Office. The amount of Rs.10,000/-, which was entrusted with the de facto complainant by the VACB as trap money, was accepted by the accused at 16:00 hours and both accused were arrested by the Dy.S.P at the Village Office at 17:00 hours on that day.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The petitioner is in judicial custody from 05.11.2021 onwards.

The petitioner has produced copy of the order passed by the Special Court refusing to release him on bail. This order contains all necessary facts. It is revealed from this order that the accused in the case had demanded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-from the de facto complainant as bribe for taking action on the application made by her. It is further revealed that the accused made repeated demands for such amount but they subsequently reduced the demand to Rs.50,000/- and finally reduced their demand to Rs.25,000/-. Even though the de facto complainant informed the accused that she had to pledge her matrimonial chain (Thalimala) to raise the amount of bribe, still the accused insisted that Rs.25,000/- had to be paid.

Inspite of the above, the fact remains that the petitioner is a heart patient. The discharge summary issued from the hospital shows that he was admitted in the hospital on 04.07.2021 due to cardiac problems and he was discharged on 06.07.2021. The discharge summary also reveals the following history of his illness.

"CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE

-ACS- NSTEMI

-SINGLE VESSEL DISEASE

-ACUTE AWMI-SVD-PRIMARY PCI WITH

STENTING TO LAD (19/05/2021) CHD-SMALLPERIMEMBRANEOUS VSD L-R SHUNT MODERATE LV DYSFUNCTION"

This being a trap case, material part of the investigation of the case would have been over by now. Further detention of the petitioner in jail is not required. The prosecution has got no apprehension that the petitioner would abscond and flee from justice, if bail is granted to him. In these circumstances, I find that bail can be granted to the petitioner on conditions.

Consequently, the petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail on the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court concerned.

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required by him to do so.

(iii) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, contact with the de facto complainant till the investigation of the case is completed.

(iv) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against him so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

(v) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the previous permission of the jurisdictional court concerned.

(vi) If the petitioner violates any of the conditions of bail, the jurisdictional court is at liberty to cancel the bail without any further orders of this Court, but in accordance with law.