Tarlochan Singh vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the first accused in Crime No.242/2015 of the Thenhipalam Police Station, Malappuram, which is registered against the accused persons for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner’s arrest was recorded on 07.09.2023.

The prosecution allegation, in brief, is that: 10.01.2010 onwards, the accused had collected Rs. 10,080/- per month, as per a monthly collection scheme, from the defacto complainant on the assurance of paying a high rate of interest. Even after the maturity of the scheme, the accused failed to pay the matured amount and refused to return the capital. Thus, the accused have committed the above offence.

Heard; Sri. Millu Dandapani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Ajith Viswanath, the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 07.09.2023, which is 517 days. The investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. The petitioner’s continued detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the petitioner is a history sheeter since, he is involved in several crimes of similar nature. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of him intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Moreover, the petitioner continues to be in judicial custody in a crime registered by the Ludhiana police. Therefore the application may be dismissed.

The prosecution case is that, the petitioner, along with other accused, had collected money from the defacto complainant on a monthly deposit scheme, on the assurance of paying high rate of interest. However, the accused have failed to return the matured amount or the capital to the defacto complainant.

Recently, in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 INSC 595] the Honourable Supreme Court has observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From its experience, it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is the rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, the Honourable Supreme Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts recognize the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception”.

Similarly, in Jalaluddin Khan v Union of India, [2024 INSC 604] the Honourable Supreme Court has observed in the following lines:

“21. xxxxx When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. “Bail is the rule and jail is an exception” is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution.”

On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, particularly on considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 517 days, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the view that the petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. 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 third Saturday of every month between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. Thereafter, the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when directed;

(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 him 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 jurisdictional court at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the jurisdictional court 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 jurisdictional court.