Kerala High Court
P.M.Ramakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 27 July, 2020
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.1044 OF 2020
CRIME NO.57/2020 OF IRITTY POLICE STATION, KANNUR
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2 :
1 P.M.RAMAKRISHNAN
AGED 75 YEARS
S/O. LATE ADV. ANANDAN, NANDANAM, KUTTIKKUNU,
KOOTHUPARAMBU-670701,
2 K. KUNHIMADHAVAN,
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O. OTHENAN, SREELAKSHMI, KEEZHUR P O, IRITTY-
670703.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN
SRI.A.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 ADDL.R2 N.V.KRISHNAN
AGED 54 YEARS, S/O M.KUNJIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR,
GOKULAM, PUNNATTU P.O, KANNUR.
IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27/2/2020 IN CRL.MA
NO.1/2O2O IN BA-1044/2020.
R2 BY ADV. NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP
OTHER PRESENT:
R1 BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. NO.1044 OF 2020 2
O R D E R
Dated this the 27th day of July 2020 ...
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.57 of 2020 of Iritty Police Station, Kannur District. The case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 420 and 463 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
3. The de facto complainant filed a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate court and the same was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)
4. The prosecution case is that, there is a society by name 'Iritty Higher Secondary School Society'. According to the prosecution, there was a registered bye-law to the society and it was registered on 16.6.1955. According to the B.A. NO.1044 OF 2020 3 prosecution, the petitioners and other accused filed an affidavit before the authorities saying that, the original bye-law is lost and they submitted a forged bye-law by which the business of the society is completely changed. According to the prosecution, even the voting right and day to day business of the society is completely changed by the new bye-law. According to the prosecution, this is a forged bye- law. Based on the same, the present complaint was filed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the alleged forgery was in 2015. According to the petitioners, the de facto complainant was removed from the society on 16.6.2019. The counsel submitted that, till that time, the de facto complainant was also a member of the society. There was no complaint to the de facto complainant during that period. When he was removed from the society, he was coming with the present B.A. NO.1044 OF 2020 4 complaint. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners are senior citizens and they are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant them bail.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The public prosecutor submitted that, there is, prima facie, evidence to show that, the petitioners and other accused committed forgery.
8. The de facto complainant supported the contentions of the learned public prosecutor. The counsel for the de facto complainant submitted that, the petitioners and other accused forged the bye-law and several litigations are pending against them before different courts.
9. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed. Admittedly, the alleged forgery was in 2015. The prosecution admits that, everything is on record. Both the parties submitted before this Court that, several litigations are pending between the parties. Civil case is also pending. In such circumstances, I think, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners, who are B.A. NO.1044 OF 2020 5 senior citizens, is not necessary in this case. I think, This bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.
10. Moreover, considering the need to follow social distancing norms inside prisons so as to avert the spread of the novel Corona Virus Pandemic, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re: Contagion of COVID- 19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020) and a Full Bench of this Court in W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020 issued various salutary directions for minimizing the number of inmates inside prisons.
11. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that, the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE
870), after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.
B.A. NO.1044 OF 2020 6
12. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:
1. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation.
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Officer concerned.
3. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not threaten or attempt to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence.
4. The petitioners shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with B.A. NO.1044 OF 2020 7 respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic.
5. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE pkk