Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 3922 OF 2024 CRIME NO.953/2023 OF RANNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA ------------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED:- BIJI MOL, 35 YEARS W/O MONCY SEBASTIAN, VATTAKUNNEL(H), ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O, KOTTAYAM, PROPRIETOR, KAIROS TOURS AND TRAVELS, PIN - 686 562 BY ADVS.
T.P.PRADEEP P.K.SATHEES KUMAR R.K.PRASANTH MINIKUMARY M.V.
JIJO JOSEPH RESPONDENT/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT :- 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RANNY POLICE STATION, RANNY P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689 672 3 ALWIN JOHN SCARIA, KUTTIKANADATHIL HOUSE, THIYYADICKAL P.O, PERUMPETTY, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689 615 BY ADVS.
LAL K.JOSEPH P.MURALEEDHARAN (THURAVOOR) T.A.LUXY SURESH SUKUMAR ANZIL SALIM SONIA SHIBU SANJAY SELLEN SMT.SEETHA S., SR.PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 3922 OF 2024 -: 2 :- O R D E R Dated this the 30
th day of July, 2024
The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of pre-arrest bail.
2.
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.953/2023 of the Ranni Police Station, Pathanamthitta, which is registered against her, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.
3.
The gist of the prosecution case is that; the accused had been running a travel agency named Kairos Tours and Travels at Athirampuzha. The de facto complainant had requested the accused to purchase flight tickets for his son's travel to London. Accordingly, the de facto complainant transferred Rs.1,17,596/- on 20.05.2023. The de facto complainant again approached the accused to arrange flight tickets for eight of his relatives to travel abroad.
Again he transferred
BAIL APPL. NO. 3922 OF 2024 -: 3 :- Rs.3,44,625/- on 09.05.2023. The accused received the above amounts and hand over forged flight tickets to the de facto complainant. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.
4.
Heard; Sri.T.P.Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Seetha S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and Sri.Lal K. Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/de facto complainant.
5.
The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against her. A reading of the First Information Report would clearly reveal that the transactions between the parties is purely civil in nature.
The petitioner and the third respondent have been maintaining a long standing relationship and the petitioner had provided more than 50 tickets to the third respondent during 2022-2023. In the case on hand, even though the third respondent had transferred the money to the
BAIL APPL. NO. 3922 OF 2024 -: 4 :- petitioner, the tickets were only to be booked at a later date. It was in the said background that the petitioner did not book the flight tickets. The allegation that the petitioner has forged the tickets is absolutely false since there is no materials forthcoming regarding the same. The petitioner is a lady without any criminal antecedents. The petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be allowed.
6.
The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. She also stated that since the petitioner has forged the flight tickets, her custodial interrogation is necessary and recovery is to be effected. If the petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it would hamper the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed.
7.
The third respondent has filed a bail objection report, inter alia, contending that he had transferred Rs.1,17,596/- for purchase of flight tickets for his son and
BAIL APPL. NO. 3922 OF 2024 -: 5 :- Rs.3,44,625/- for purchase of flight tickets for his relatives.
Shockingly the petitioner had handed over forged flight tickets to the third respondent. On verification of the PNR status, the third respondent came to know that the tickets were forged. Thus, the accused has cheated the de facto complainant and committed forgery. If the petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest, it would certainly hamper the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed.
8.
The prosecution case is that; the petitioner had received money from the third respondent on the assurance of purchasing flight tickets for his son as well as his relatives. However, the petitioner did not purchase the tickets, but misappropriated the money. It is also alleged that the petitioner had handed over forged flight tickets to the third respondent. Prima facie, there are materials to substantiate the petitioner's involvement in the crime. Even though the petitioner had filed a similar application before the Court of Session, Pathanamthitta,
BAIL APPL. NO. 3922 OF 2024 -: 6 :- the same was dismissed by Annexure 9 order finding that the petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary.
9.
In Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and another, [(2012) 4 SCC 379], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, an order of pre-arrest bail being an extra ordinary privilege, should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Courts has to be properly exercised, after proper application of mind, to decide whether it is a fit case to grant an order of pre-arrest bail. The court has to be prima facie satisfied that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime and his liberty is being misused.
10. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, particularly on considering the nature, gravity, and seriousness of the accusations levelled against the petitioner, there are prima facie materials to substantiate the petitioner’s involvement in the crime, the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary and
BAIL APPL. NO. 3922 OF 2024 -: 7 :- recovery is to be effected, I am not convinced that the petitioner has made out any valid ground to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of the Code. Hence, I hold that this is not a fit case to grant an order of pre-arrest bail.
Resultantly, the bail application is dismissed.
Sd/- C.S. DIAS, JUDGE Jvt/31.7.2024
BAIL APPL. NO. 3922 OF 2024 -: 8 :- APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3922/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES :- ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 953/2023 DATED 12.10.2023 OF RANNY POLICE STATION ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 26.08.2022 ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE BUSINESS OF APRIL , 2023 ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMED TICKETS ISSUED TO SHIBIN & FAMILY ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 2003/2023 IN PALAI POLICE STATION DATED 14.10.2023 ANNEXURE 6 TRUE COPY OF THE BOOKING DETAILS DATED 20.05.2023 ANNEXURE 7 TRUE COPY OF THE BOOKING DETAILS ANNEXURE 8 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE MAIN AGENT FLY ESPERAR ANNEXURE 9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2023 IN CRL.M.P NO. 8098/2023 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA RESPONDENT ANNEXURES :- ANNEXURE R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH ADVERTISEMENT 3 NOS OF THE SERVICES ALLEGEDLY OFFERED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT UPLOADED IN HER FACEBOOK ACCOUNT BEARING NAME KAIROS TOURS AND TRAVELS ANNEXURE R3(B) TREU COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 25.09.2023 ANNEXURE R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 25.09.2023