Kerala High Court
Shylaja S vs State Of Kerala on 6 September, 2024
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2024:KER:67668
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 15TH BHADRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 6554 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1007/2023 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONER:
SHYLAJA S,
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O.SUDHEER, PANAVILA HOUSE,
VAIDYASALA NAGAR-207,
ASRAMAM P.O,KOLLAM DISTRICT.,
PIN - 691002
BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI., PIN - 682031
2 USHA,
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O.MOHANAN, AAYATHIL HOUSE, NO.67,
RAM NILAYAM, SNEHA NAGAR,
DIVISION NO.25, KOLLAM.,
PIN - 691011
3 REKHA S,
AGED 44 YEARS
W/O.AJAYAN, ANIPALLIL HOUSE,
RESIDENCY ROAD,ASRAMAM P.O, KOLLAM,
PIN - 691002
B.A.No.6554/2024
-:2:-
2024:KER:67668
4 LATHAKUMARI,
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O.AJAYAN, KADAMPATTU PUTHENVEEDU,
MYTHRI NAGAR, ASRAMAM P.O, KOLLAM.,
PIN - 691002
5 ISHA,
AGED 38 YEARS
W/O.GIREESAN, PANAVILA VADAKKATHIL,
VAIDYASALA NAGAR, ASRAMAM P.O,
KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691002
BY ADV GEORGE V. PAUL
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SMT SEETHA S
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.6554/2024
-:3:-
2024:KER:67668
ORDER
Dated this the 6th day of September, 2024 The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the sole accused in Crime No.1007/2023 of the Kollam East Police Station, Kollam, which is registered against her for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 29.07.2024.
2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: the accused, who was appointed as a Mahila Pradhan Agent of National Savings Scheme, Kollam district Head Quarters, during the period between 2017 to 2022, collected money from depositors of the de-facto complainant, but failed to remit the same to the district Head Quarters/de-facto complainant, instead B.A.No.6554/2024 -:4:- 2024:KER:67668 misappropriated the money. The preliminary investigation reveals that the petitioner has misappropriated Rs.50,000/- from four depositors. Many other investors have also been cheated by the accused. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.
3. Heard; Sri. Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Smt. Seetha S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and Sri. George V. Paul, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against her. There is no material to substantiate that the petitioner has committed the above offences. It is true that the petitioner was a Mahila Pradhan agent of the National Savings Scheme B.A.No.6554/2024 -:5:- 2024:KER:67668 of Kollam District. It is only due to the affliction of her husband that she was unable to remit the collected money under the scheme. The petitioner has now settled the disputes with the respondents 2 to 5 and she is making efforts to remit the collected money. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 40 days, the investigation in the case is complete, the recovery has been effected, and the charge sheet has been filed on 16.08.2024. Moreover, the petitioner is a lady without any criminal antecedents. Even going by the prosecution allegation, there is only one crime registered against the petitioner. Hence, the application may be allowed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the petitioner has misappropriated the deposits made by 14 of the depositors under the scheme. Merely because the B.A.No.6554/2024 -:6:- 2024:KER:67668 petitioner has settled the disputes with the respondents 2 to 5, and the same will not exonerate her liability. A factual enquiry was conducted by the District Collector, Kollam, and a report has been filed on 30.06.2023, which clearly reveals that the petitioner has committed the above offences. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of her influencing the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 5 submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and the said respondents has been amicably settled, and they have no subsisting grievance against the petitioner. Therefore, the said respondents have no objection in the petitioner being enlarged on bail.
7. The prosecution allegation is that, while the accused was working as Mahila Pradhan Agent of B.A.No.6554/2024 -:7:- 2024:KER:67668 the National Savings Scheme, Kollam District Head Quarters, she misappropriated the remittances made by the depositors under the Scheme and cheated the de-facto complainant of Rs.50,000/-. Even though the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are 14 affected persons in the crime, the total amount involved is Rs.50,000/-. It is not disputed that the petitioner has settled the dispute with the respondents 2 to 5. However, it may not be the sole ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, as the offences are committed against the State. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 40 days, the investigation in the case is complete, the recovery has been effected, and the charge sheet has been filed on 16.08.2024. Furthermore, the respondents 2 to 5 have submitted B.A.No.6554/2024 -:8:- 2024:KER:67668 that they have no subsisting grievance and the petitioner is a lady without any criminal antecedents.
8. 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 B.A.No.6554/2024 -:9:- 2024:KER:67668 is the rule and jail is an exception.
9. Similarly, in Jalaluddin Khan v Union of India [2024 INSC 604] has observed in the following lines:
"21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention here that the Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant's case could not be properly appreciated. 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."
10. On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the B.A.No.6554/2024 -:10:- 2024:KER:67668 materials placed on record, particularly on comprehending the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 40 days, the investigation in the case is complete, the recovery has been effected, the charge sheet has been laid, and furthermore, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, I am of the definite view that the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application, but subject to stringent conditions.
In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on her 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 every third Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the conclusion of B.A.No.6554/2024 -:11:- 2024:KER:67668 the trial in Crime No.1007/2023. She shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;
(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 her 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 she is on bail;
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session, Kollam, without the previous permission of the jurisdictional court;
(v) The petitioner shall surrender her passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If she has no passport, she shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;B.A.No.6554/2024 -:12:-
2024:KER:67668
(vi) 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.
(vii)Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be filed and entertained before the court below.
(viii)Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS,JUDGE
DST/06.09.24 //True copy//
P.A. To Judge