HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
JAFFER, – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, – Respondent
Bail Appl. 3955/2024
Bail - Criminal Procedure - Sections 420, 34 IPC, Section 66D IT Act - Accused impersonated as police officials, threatened complainant, and induced him to transfer Rs. 1.15 crore to their accounts, cheating him. Accused in judicial custody for 1 month, investigation complete, no criminal antecedents. Bail granted on stringent conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, in furtherance of their common intention to cheat the de facto complainant, made telephone calls to him by impersonating themselves to be Police officials of the Mumbai Colaba Police Station, and threatened the de facto complainant that an arrest warrant was issued against him by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. They induced the de facto complainant to transfer an amount of Rs.1,15,00,000/- to the bank account of the accused, thereby cheating him.
Finding of the Court:
The prosecution allegation against the accused is that they impersonated themselves to be Police Officials and threatened the de facto complainant that they would arrest him pursuant to a warrant issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the accused induced the de facto complainant to transfer Rs.1,15,00,000/- to their bank accounts, thereby cheating him. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last one month, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Moreover, there is no material to show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents.
Issues: Whether the accused should be granted bail in the case registered against them under Sections 420, 34 IPC and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, until a person is found guilty. Any imprisonment prior to conviction is to be considered as punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct. Undertrial prisoners detained in jail for indefinite periods, without any sufficient reason or due to the delay in concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception is on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Once the charge sheet is filed, a strong case has to be made out for continuing a person in judicial custody. The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society.
Final Decision: 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, subject to stringent conditions.
The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , by the seventh accused in Crime No.10/2024 of the Cyber Crime Police Station, Ernakulam Rural, Ernakulam, registered against the accused (seven in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.66D of the Information Technology Act . The petitioner had surrendered on 29.4.2024.
2. The crux of the prosecution case is that; the accused, in furtherance of their common intention to cheat the de facto complainant, made telephone calls to him by impersonating themselves to be Police officials of the Mumbai Colaba Police Station, and threatened the de facto complainant that an arrest warrant was issued against him by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. They induced the de facto complainant to transfer an amount of Rs.1,15,00,000/- to the bank account of the accused. Accordingly, the accused cheated the de facto complainant.
Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.
3. Heard; Sri.Samsudin Panolan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. There is no material to substantiate the petitioner’s involvement in the case.
Pursuant to Annexure A3 order passed by this Court, the petitioner surrendered before the Investigating Officer.
However, the petitioner was arrested and incarcerated for the last one month. The investigation in the case so far as it relates to the petitioner is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that investigation in the case is in progress. She also stated that a white-collar crime has been committed by the accused. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing a similar offence and also tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed.
6. The prosecution allegation against the accused is that they impersonated themselves to be Police Officials and threatened the de facto complainant that they would arrest him pursuant to a warrant issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the accused induced the de facto complainant to transfer Rs.1,15,00,000/- to their bank accounts. Accordingly, they cheated the de facto complainant. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last one month, the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Moreover, there is no material to show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents.
7. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI , [2012 1 SCC 40] , the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, until a person is found guilty.
Any imprisonment prior to conviction is to be considered as punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct.
8. In State of Kerala v. Raneef , [(2011) 1 SCC 784] , the Honourable Supreme Court has declared that undertrial prisoners detained in jail for indefinite periods, without any sufficient reason or due to the delay in concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
9. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception is on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Once the charge sheet is filed, a strong case has to be made out for continuing a person in judicial custody. The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society.
10. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.