Kerala High Court
M/S. Dtdc Express Limited vs The State Of Kerala on 29 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
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.1387 OF 2020
CRIME NO.583/2019 OF Peerumedu Police Station , Idukki
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 M/S. DTDC EXPRESS LIMITED,
HOUSE NO.3, VICTORIA ROAD, BANGALURU-560047,
REPRESENTED BY MR. RAKESH A.S., REGIONAL MANAGER.
2 MR. RAKESH A.S.,
REGIONAL MANAGER, M/S. DTDC EXPRESS LIMITED, 2ND
FLOOR, KUMMANCHERRY BUILDING, PATHADIPALAM, KOCHI-
682033.
3 MR. RAJESH KUMAR,
AREA OPERATIONS MANAGER, M/S. DTDC EXPRESS LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, KUMMANCHERRY BUILDING, PATHADIPALAM,
KOCHI-682033.
4 MRS. MINI PHILOMINA,
CREDIT FINANCE CONTROLLER, DTDC EXPRESS LIMITED, 2ND
FLOOR, KUMMANCHERRY BUILDING, PATHADIPALAM, KOCHI-
682033.
5 MR. SANJU MUHAMMED,
REGIONAL CHANNEL MANAGER, DTDC EXPRESS LIMITED, 2ND
FLOOR, KUMMANCHERRY BUILDING, PATHADIPALAM, KOCHI-
682033.
6 MR. SHANAVAS K.S.,
ASSISTANT BRANCH MANAGER, DTDC EXPRESS LIMITED,
42/1116, SORTING OFFICE, ADIMALY, IDUKKI.
7 MR. ABDUL SATHAR P.A.,
CHANNEL MANAGER, OPERATIONS, DTDC EXPRESS LIMITED,
42/1116, SORTING OFFICE, ADIMALY, IDUKKI.
8 MR. THILAKAN C.G.,
ASSISTANT MANAGER (ACCOUNTS), DTDC EXPRESS LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, KUMMANCHERRY BUILDING, PATHADIPALAM,
B.A.No. 1387 OF 2020 2
KOCHI-682033.
9 MR. SOMASUNDARAM,
MANAGER, DTDC EXPRESS LIMITED, 2ND FLOOR,
KUMMANCHERRY BUILDING, PATHADIPALAM, KOCHI-682033.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BINU MATHEW
SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM
KUM.T.M.KRISHNA PRIYA
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEERMADE
POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING
B.A.No. 1387 OF 2020 3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.1387 of 2020
-------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2020
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.583 of 2019 of Peerumade Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 120B, 477A r/w Section 34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that accused Nos.1 to 9 with intention of causing illegal gain to them and causing loss to the complainant colluded together and falsified the records of the Company and transferred amounts paid, into the name of the 10th accused. The further case of the prosecution is that on account of the salary due to the complainant's staff an amount B.A.No. 1387 OF 2020 4 of Rs.2,99,000/- and another amount of Rs.1,18,000/- due as delivery charges to the complainant totaling to Rs.4,17,000/- has not been paid to the complainant and has thus cheated the complainant.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted it is only a monitory dispute. The counsel submitted that the defacto complainant already filed a suit before the civil court on 21.10.2019. No interim order passed by the civil court. Thereafter, the present case is filed on 8.11.2019.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor even though opposed the Bail Application submitted that if this Court is granting bail to the petitioners, stringent conditions may be imposed.
7. After hearing both sides, I think, this Bail Application can be allowed. There are allegations and counter allegations about some monitory disputes. Whether there is cheating or forgery is to be investigated by the investigating officer. For B.A.No. 1387 OF 2020 5 that purpose custodial interrogation may not be necessary. This Bail Application is pending before this Court from 19.2.2020 onwards. Admittedly, the defacto complainant filed a suit before the civil court. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this 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 bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule B.A.No. 1387 OF 2020 6 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 petitioners 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 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 for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners shall co-operate B.A.No. 1387 OF 2020 7 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. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the Court.
5. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.
6. The petitioners 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/petitioners, the B.A.No. 1387 OF 2020 8 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/-+