Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1945 CRIME NO.783/2023 OF POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/1st ACCUSED: SANTHOSH KUMAR T AGED 48 YEARS S/O. THANKAPPAN, S.K. BHAVAN, THERIYILMELE, MANGALATHUKONAM KATTACHALKUZHY P.O., BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695501 BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS/ STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695012 BY SMT.SEETHA SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This application is filed u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.
2. The applicant is the accused No.1 in Crime No.783/2023 of Poojappura Police Station. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 34 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is as follows: The applicant visited the house of the defacto complainant by
wearing the identity card of Railway Recruitment Board with intention to receive money fraudulently, met the mother of the defacto complainant, introduced him to the mother as a railway recruitment agent, promised her that he would arrange a job of a Clerk at the Indian Railway for her son, induced her to part with Rs.8 lakhs and accordingly the mother of the defacto complainant transferred a sum of Rs.8 lakhs to his account and further received a sum of Rs.10,000/- from her through Google Pay. Thereafter, the applicant issued an offer letter bearing the logo of Indian Railway, took the defacto complainant to Chennai and introduced him to accused Nos. 2 and 3 who were also wearing the identity card of the Indian Railway, caused the defacto complainant to believe that he secured employment in the Indian
Railway, without actually providing any employment as offered nor returned the amount and thereby committed the offences.
4. I have heard Sri.Latheesh Sebastian, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt.Seetha, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to get bail. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and if he is released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.
6. The law regarding the grant or refusal of pre-arrest bail is
well settled. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. The power u/s 438 of Cr.P.C could be exercised only when a special case is made out, that too, recording reasons thereof. Perusal of the case diary reveals that the accusation made against the applicant is very serious in nature and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his part.
The investigation is in a preliminary stage. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the investigation. As rightly argued by the learned Public Prosecutor, the possibility of the
applicant influencing the witnesses and interfering with the investigation cannot be ruled out if he is released on bail. Considering the gravity of the offence and stage of the investigation, it is not a fit case where extra ordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. could be invoked. The bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE AS