Waseem Thondikodan @ T Vaseem vs State Of Kerala

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J

These bail applications are filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)

The petitioners are accused no.1 in Crime Nos. 356/2024, 357/2024, 352/2024, 373/2024, 353/2024, 355/2024, 345/2024, 351/2024, 346/2024 & 389/2024 of Kottakkal Police Station, Malappuram District. The above cases are registered mainly alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 r/w Section 34 IPC.

The prosecution case is that the petitioner who is the Director of a financial establishment by the name SIS Banc Nidhi Ltd., dishonestly induced the defacto complainant to make deposit in the said establishment from 23.06.2022 onwards and cheated him by not returning the amount deposited by the defacto complainants in these cases. The petitioner was arrested on 30/01/2024 and his arrest was recorded in the other cases on subsequent dates. As per Annexure A3 judgment, this Court directed the investigating officer to record the arrest of the petitioner in all cases because several cases are registered with same set of allegations.

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

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody for more than 60 days. It is submitted that the offence alleged against the petitioner is mainly under Section 420 of the IPC and the charge sheet is to be submitted within 60 days from the date of remand. Now, 60 days is over after the arrest of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner may be released on bail in these cases is the submission. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail applications and submitted that the petitioner is the main accused and he cheated several victims and cases are being registered against the petitioner based on subsequent complaints also.

This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is true that the petitioner is the 1st accused and he is involved in several cases. But the petitioner was arrested on 30/01/2024 and his arrest is recorded in the subsequent cases thereafter. The offence alleged against the petitioner is mainly under Section 420 of the IPC. Considering the facts and circumstances of these cases, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.

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 they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

Petitioner shall surrender his passport. If there is no passport, the petitioner shall file an affidavit to that effect.

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.