Sreedharan vs State Of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J

The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.397 of 2022 of Kunnamkulam police station, Thrissur district. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

The prosecution case is that the accused in the year 2020, came to the house of the de facto complainant for borrowing 7 sovereigns of gold ornaments belonging to the de facto complainant with a promise to return it back within one year and the accused further pledged the gold ornaments at Kunnamkulam branch in the name of the wife of the accused and then subsequently renewed the pledge in the name of the accused, which was later disposed of and neither the ornaments nor the amount received from the accused. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

Heard  the  counsel  for  the  petitioner  and  the  Public Prosecutor.

The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions in the bail application. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is aged 84 years and even if the prosecution case is accepted, no offence is made out. The Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.

This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. After hearing both sides I think the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case. The petitioner is aged 84 years. There can be a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer, so that the interrogation of the petitioner can be completed. This bail application is pending before this Court from 2022 onwards. There is an interim order on 19.04.2022 directing the police authorities not to arrest the petitioner. That order is in force even now. It is true that the allegations against the petitioner and other accused are very serious, but considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner is aged 84 years, the petitioner can be granted bail. There can be stringent conditions while granting bail.

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 appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;

After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, she shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;

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 them 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 they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected;

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.