Kerala High Court
C.G.Raveendranatha Prabhu vs State Of Kerala on 24 August, 2020
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BA.No.618 OF 2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 2ND BHADRA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.618 OF 2020
CRIME NO.771/2019 OF Kuthiyathode Police Station , Alappuzha
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
C.G.RAVEENDRANATHA PRABHU, AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.GOVINDHA PRABHU, MAVELIPARAMBIL,
VALAMANGALAM.P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
SRI.V.VINAY
SRI.D.FEROZE
SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921)
SHRI.ABHILASH JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031(CRIME
NO.771/2019, KUTHIYATHODU POLICE STATION,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT)
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KUTHIYATHODE POLICE STATION,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688002(CRIME NO.771/2019,
KUTHIYATHODU POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT)
3 ADDL.R3: C.B.HARI, S/O BHASKARAN NAIR,
CHAYAPPALLIYIL HOUSE, POOCHAKKAL PO,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT- 688526.
IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AS PER THE ORDER DATED IN
20/2/2020 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2020.
R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
R3 BY ADV. SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI
SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BA.No.618 OF 2020 2
O R D E R
Dated this the 24th day of August 2020 This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
2. Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.771/2019 of Kuthiyathodu Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 463, 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 IPC.
3. The above case is registered based on a private complaint filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate, which is forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In the complaint it is alleged that the petitioner is one of the fourteen trustees of the charitable trust by name 'Vyasa Foundation'. The said trust formed in 2003 and the same was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. When the trust was formed one C.G.Viswanathaprabu, the brother of the petitioner, was the executive trustee. The trustees contributed Rs.2 lakhs each to the corpus of the trust. It is alleged that after the death of Viswanathaprabhu, the petitioner herein assumed the role of the executive trustee. The trust office was run in one of the rooms of BA.No.618 OF 2020 3 the residential home of the petitioner. It was further alleged that the petitioner was in possession of the trust documents. It is also alleged that the petitioner hatched conspiracy with the other accused and by fabricating a resolution authorising the petitioner to deal with the trust properties entered into an agreement for sale on 21.11.2012. Hence it is stated that the petitioner committed the above said offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The defacto complainant appeared through a counsel. Heard the counsel for the defacto complainant also.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that evenif the entire allegations are accepted, no offene is made out against the petitioner. The counsel also submitted that the alleged transaction of the property was in 2012. The private complaint was filed in 2019. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any condition, if this Court grant bail to him.
6. The counsel for the defacto complainant seriously opposed the bail application. The counsel submitted that the produced documents in this bail application are also forged documents. The counsel submitted that Annexure I is alleged to be the decision of the trust. That also is a forged document. The counsel submitted that this is a fit case in which custodial BA.No.618 OF 2020 4 interrogation of the petitioner is necessary and this Court may not invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C in this case.
7. The Public Prosecutor also opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that there is prima facie evidence to show that there is forgery.
8. This bail application was filed on 23.1.2020. There is no order restraining the police in arresting the petitioner. Proviso to Section 438(1) Cr.P.C clearly says that if there is no interim order restraining the arrest of an accused, the police can arrest the petitioner eventhough the bail application is pending before this Court. Even now the petitioner is not arrested. The allegation in the complaint is that there is an illegal transfer of a trust property in 2012. A private complaint is filed alleging the offence of forgery in 2019. The private complaint was forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and accordingly the present case is registered. I don't want to make any observation on the merit of the case. According to the defacto complainant and the Prosecutor, the forgery is clear by documentary evidence itself. If that is the case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent BA.No.618 OF 2020 5 conditions.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation.
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he shall BA.No.618 OF 2020 6 be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned.
3. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
4. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
6. The petitioner shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic.
7. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
ab JUDGE
BA.No.618 OF 2020 7