Kerala High Court
Radhakrishnan .M.B vs State Of Kerala on 30 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
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.1567 OF 2020
CRIME NO.458/2018 OF Chengamanad Police Station , Ernakulam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
RADHAKRISHNAN .M.B
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.M.BALANPAI, MUNDASSERIL HOUSE, PULLEPPADY,
CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR
SMT.V.SHYLAJA
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CHENGAMANAD POLICE STATION, CHENGAMANAD, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN-683578.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No. 1567 OF 2020 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.1567 of 2020
-------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2020
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
2. Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.458 of 2018 of Chengamanadu Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner and another alleging offences punishable under Sections 408, 418, 420 r/w 34 IPC. The case was registered in the year 2018. Now the petitioner apprehends arrest because he received Annexure A notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C.
3. One Ajith Sharafudheen, the Proprietor of M/s. AJ Exports and Imports, a fruits and vegetables exporting B.A.No. 1567 OF 2020 3 merchant filed the complaint. The allegation is that the petitioner committed cheating and misappropriation. The petitioner is the Accountant and the first accused is the Manager of the company.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence. Even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the Bail Application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that if this Court is granting him bail, stringent conditions may be imposed.
7. Admittedly, this case is registered by Chengamanadu Police in the year 2018. Even now, the investigation of the case is not completed. The petitioner received Annexure A notice only in February 2020. Till that time the police has no case that the petitioner has committed any offence. A perusal of Annexure A shows that the presence of the petitioner is B.A.No. 1567 OF 2020 4 necessary for recording statement. The petitioner is bound to appear before the investigating officer. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in this case. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I think, this Bail Application can be allowed on stringent conditions.
8. 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.
9. 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 B.A.No. 1567 OF 2020 5 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.
10. 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, she shall 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 B.A.No. 1567 OF 2020 6 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 she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she 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 B.A.No. 1567 OF 2020 7 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, JUDGE al/-+