Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, Bail Appl..No.2165 OF 2020 CRIME NO.391/2020 OF MARADU POLICE STATION , Ernakulam PETITIONER/S: SINI MANJESH AGED 38 YEARS W/O.MANJESH RESIDING AT KOCHUMALAYIL HOUSE, PANKOD POST, KOLENCHERI BY ADV. SRI.R.KISHORE (KALLUMTHAZHAM) RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MARADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM-682304 3 VAISAKH.C.G, AGED 32 YEARS S/O.GANESAN, RESIDING AT VAISAKH BHAVAN, KARIMUGAL, FACT COLONY, PUTHENCRUZE.P.O, ERNAKULAM 4 UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 42 YEARS RESIDING @ THELAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NIRAVATH ROAD, MARADU.P.O, ERNAKULAM-4
5 DEEPA UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 35 YEARS W/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, RESIDING @ THELAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NIRAVATH ROAD, MARADU.P.O, ERNAKULAM-682304. 6 ROY THANKACHAN, AGED 30 YEARS S/O.THANKACHAN, RESIDING @ KARIKKODU, OKKAL.P.O, CHELAMATTOM, ERNAKULAM-683550. (DELETED) (R6 IS DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 14/08/2020 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2020) 7 LOYAL L.THOMAS, AGED 31 YEARS S/O.THOMAS, CHIRIYANKANDATHIL, PANDAVATH ROAD,MARADU-682304. R7 BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR
OTHER PRESENT: SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.8.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..3630/2020, Bail Appl..3978/2020 AND Bail Appl..4363/2020, THE COURT ON 24.11.2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, Bail Appl..No.3630 OF 2020 CRIME NO.391/2020 OF MARADU POLICE STATION , Ernakulam PETITIONER/A3: MANJESH AGED 43 YEARS RESIDING @ KOCHUMALAYIL HOUSE, PANKODE POST, KOLENCHERI. BY ADV. SRI.R.KISHORE (KALLUMTHAZHAM) RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER MARADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM-682 304. 3 VAISAKH C.G. AGED 32 YEARS S/O. GANESAN, RESIDING @ VAISAKH BHAVAN, KARIMUGAL, FACT COLONY, PUTHENCURUZE P.O., ERNAKULAM.
4 UNNIKRISHNAN AGED 42 YEARS RESIDING @ THELAPARAMBIL HOSUE, NIRAVATH ROAD, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM-4. 5 DEEPA UNNIKRISHNAN AGED 35 YEARS W/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, RESIDING @ THELAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NIRAVATH ROAD, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM- 682 304. 6 ROY THANKACHAN AGED 30 YEARS S/O. THANKACHAN, RESIDING @ KARIKKODU, OKKAL P.O., CHELAMATTOM, ERNAKULAM-683 550. (DELETED) (ADDL. R6 IS DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 7 LOYAL L.THOMAS AGED 31 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, CHIRIYANKANDATHIL, PANDAVATH ROAD, MARADU-682 304. 8 VISHNU S AGED 25 YEARS S/O SHINE KUMAR ,KARTHIKA ,MARADU,PIN 682304. IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R8 AS PER ORDER DATED R3 BY ADV. SRI.BIJU K. VAVA R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.GIRISHKUMAR R8 BY ADV. A.T.ANILKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
14.8.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2165/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 24.11.2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, Bail Appl..No.3978 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1208/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CRIME NO.391/2020 OF MARADU POLICE STATION , Ernakulam PETITIONER/A1: UNNIKRISHNAN T R AGED 42 YEARS TELAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 304. BY ADV. SRI.IEANS.C.CHAMAKKALA RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031. 2 ADDL.R2 LOYAL L THOMAS AGED 27 YEARS S/O LONAPPAN, CHIRIYANKANDATH HOUSE, PANDAVATH HOUSE, MARADU KARA, MARADU VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682304 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 11.08.2020 IN CRL.M.A.NO.2/2020. R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.8.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2165/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 24.11.2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, Bail Appl..No.4363 OF 2020 CRIME NO.0391/2020 OF MARADU POLICE STATION , Ernakulam PETITIONER/ACCUSED: VYSAKH AGED 29 YEARS VYSAKH BHAVAN, KARIMUGAL PUTHENCRUZ P.O. ERNAKULAM 682 308. BY ADVS. SRI.BIJU K. VAVA SRI.V.GIRISHKUMAR RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, 682 031. 2 ADDL. R2 LOYAL. L. THOMAS S/O THOMAS, AGED 31 YEARS, CHIRIVAKANDATHIL HOUSE, PANDAVATH ROAD, MARADU-682304. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 03.08.2020 IN CRL. MA NO. 1/2020 IN BA NO. 4363 OF 2020. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.11.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2165/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
COMMON ORDER
[ Bail Appl..2165/2020, Bail Appl..3630/2020, Bail Appl..3978/2020, Bail Appl..4363/2020 ] Dated this the 24th day of November 2020 Applications filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C for anticipatory bail.
2. The applicants are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No. committed offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant in BA is the 2nd accused, the applicant in BA 3630/2020 is the 3rd accused, while the applicant in BA 4363/2020 is the 4th accused.
3. The prosecution case in brief, is this:-
The accused in furtherance of common intention dishonestly induced the de facto complainant, Loyal L Thomas, to deliver a sum of ₹150,000 between the period from 23/12/2019 to
believe that he would be provided an employment in the Cochin Refineries Limited (CRL). Similar promises were made to Vishnu and Roy Thankachan and they too were induced to deliver ₹ 5 lakhs to the 1st accused. It is alleged that all the accused were present at the time of the aforesaid transactions and that they had received the amount in furtherance of common intention to cheat the de facto complainant and the others. A2 is a politician and a block president of a political party. A3 is her husband, A1 is associated with A2, and A4 who is employed in the CRL. Despite having received the money and appropriated it, the job as promised was never provided nor were the amounts returned to the de facto complainant and others. Thus, the accused cheated them.
4. The 1st accused contends that the allegations made
by the prosecution are not true. He is a Congress party worker and is therefore acquainted with the couple, A2 and A3, who are active workers of the Congress (S) party. He claims that he is the percussion artist and a drummer. He had contacted A2 and she had promised him a job at the Travancore Devaswom
Board. He had paid ₹50,000 to her as advance towards ₹150,000 demanded by her. The de facto complainant is his neighbour and coming to know about this, he too approached A2 and requested her to arrange a job for him too. It is stated that the amounts allegedly paid by the de facto complainant and others was not at the house of the 1st accused but at some other place and paid directly to A2. There are photographs available to evidence receipt of money by A2. He would state that it was A2 and A3 who had cheated many job aspirants including him. He states that he has been implicated as accused solely for the reason that the de facto complainant
had approached A2 through him. The application filed by him before the Court of Sessions, Ernakulam was dismissed for the reason that the investigation is in its preliminary stage.
5. Accused 2 and 3 have the same contentions and
would state that the 3rd accused who is employed in the CRL had approached A2 and informed her about some job vacancies on contractual basis arising in the CRL. Being a politician, she was eager to seize the opportunity to provide employment to unemployed persons whom she serves as a politician. She immediately informed A1 who is also a party member and he confirmed that the 3rd accused is a person known to him personally. A3 informed them that some amounts need to be paid to union leaders of the CRL and accordingly a sum of ₹ 30,000 was collected from the de facto complainant and others and handed over to A1 and A3. The said payment alone was paid in the presence of A2. Later, they came to know that further amounts were collected by accused
1 and 4. A2 and A3 were willing to return the money to the de facto complainant. However, he abused them and A2 has filed a complaint before the Police Commissioner regarding the abuse by the de facto complainant.
6. The fourth accused submits that he is innocent and
that the allegations made against him are all untrue. He never obtain any money from the de facto complainant nor has he induced anyone to pay any amount for securing a job. He has no criminal antecedents. He is willing to co-operate with the investigation.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the accused persons, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Available records perused.
8. There are sufficient materials to indicate the involvement of the applicants in the alleged act of cheating the job seekers from the locality. Accused 1 and 2 have political
clout and using that clout they have made several persons believe that they would be able to provide them employment. The justification is given by the accused and their applications are not readily acceptable. Custodial interrogation by the investigating officer would unravel many truths concerning the transactions that took place. Common citizens have great respect for the politicians who are able to help them to resolve their difficulties. In case the applicants are set at liberty without giving an opportunity to the investigating officer to interrogate them, it would definitely hamper the course of investigation.
9. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others [2010 KHC 4952 : 2011 (1) SCC 694], it was held thus:-
“122. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the
exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; ii. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; iv. The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. vii. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of S.34 and S.149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; viii. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and
unjustified detention of the accused; ix. The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; x. Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal
course of events, the accused is entitled to an order
of bail.”
10. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the above cited decision, there are no reasons available for the applicants to seek anticipatory bail in the instant case. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. [See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran (2007 (4) SCC 434), State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain (2008 (1) SCC 213), Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal (2008 (13) SCC 305) and
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 KHC 6886 : 2019 (9) SCC 24)]. Relying on the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no room for doubt that in the instant case, the applicants who are responsible for ensnaring guileless unemployed jobseekers to make payments in aspiration of getting employed, cannot be granted the benefit of the extraordinary remedy of anticipatory bail. The applications are therefore to be dismissed. And I do so. Sd/- ASHOK MENON JUDGE jg