Jubin Baby And Others vs State

T.V.Thamilselvi, J

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.02.2024 for the alleged offence under Section 342, 370, 374 of I.P.C. and Sec.89 of Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in Crime No.112 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

The case of prosecution is that the defacto complainant, who is serving as District Disabled Welfare Officer in Villupuram, lodged a complaint stating that the petitioners said to have illegally recruited five mentally retarded persons for their construction work without any remuneration despite the same, it is against the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.6518 of 2023 passed by this court. Accordingly, the complaint was registered against the petitioners.

The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that based on the complaint given by District Disabled Welfare Officer, they were falsely implicated in this case and as per the order passed by this court, they have complied the condition, besides now the home is also closed and they have not constructed any construction, but also having vengeance against them as they failed to pay bribe claimed by him, again the present complaint was lodged. He would submit that there is no specific overtact attributed against the petitioners and they are no way connected with the offence. He would submit that they have not at all committed any of offence as alleged by the respondent police and they have been falsely implicated in this case and he will abide by any condition that may be imposed by this court. He would further submit that the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioners have been suffering incarceration for more than 40 days from 24.02.2024. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioners.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that the petitioners have recruited five mentally retarded persons for their construction work without any remuneration despite the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No. 6518 of 2023. He would submit that totally there are two accused involved in this case, in which the petitioners are arrayed as A1 and A2 and no previous case pending against them. He would submit that that if they are released on bail, they would tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation and the\ investigation is almost completed. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.

On seeing the facts, it reveals that the petitioners have some malpractice while running an ashram and on considering the facts, this court in Crl.O.P.Nos. 6518 and 6519 of 2023 granted bail for them with certain conditions, thereby, now the home is closed and inmates are also shifted to other place, however, by levelling the same allegation now the second complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant in view of vengeance as they failed to pay bribe claimed by him. Considering the above facts and circumstances, and the fact that now investigation was completed and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioners from 24.02.2024 for more than 40 days, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each, in which one surety must be a blood surety, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Villupuram, and on further conditions that:

(a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;

(b) the petitioners shall stay at Chennai and sign before the Inspector of Police, CBCID Headquarters, Metro Wing, Guindy, Chennai on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for another period of four months ;

(c) the petitioners shall file an affidavit before the trial court that they would not run Anbujothi Ashram until getting permission from the appropriate forum as per manner known to law;

(d) the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature;

(e) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(f) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(g) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

(h) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.