High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-07-23Bail application allowed on stringent condition...

Ajith Kumar Menon v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Bail Appl. No.8248 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-07-23
Court Decision / Holding: The Bail Application is allowed on stringent conditions: (1) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days for interrogation; (2) If the IO proposes arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties for similar amounts; (3) The petitioner shall appear before the IO on all Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at 10 a.m. until final report; (4) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and not threaten or tamper with witnesses; (5) If non-cooperation occurs, the IO may move to cancel bail; (6) The petitioner shall adhere to COVID-19 social distancing guidelines; (7) Any violation allows cancellation of bail by the jurisdictional court. The order also notes reliance on Supreme Court's bail jurisprudence and COVID-19 directives, and it is issued with the aim of facilitating fair trial while safeguarding public interest.
Final Disposition: Bail application allowed on stringent conditions; petitioner to cooperate with investigation and comply with COVID-19 guidelines.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ajith Kumar Menon, aged 62 years, S/o P.K. G.Nair, Kakkkot House, Orumanayoor P.O.

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam (Crime No.623/2019 of Thrikkakara East Police Station, Ernakulam District)
Station House Officer, Thrikkakara Police Station, Ernakulam District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri S. Rajeev
• Sri K. K. Dheerendra Krishnan
• Sri V. Vinay
• Sri D. Feroze
• Sri K. Anand (A-1921)

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, State of Kerala

Case Synopsis & Summary

Ajith Kumar Menon, the applicant in Bail Application No.8248 of 2019, faces accusations in Crime No.623/2019 of Thrikkakara Police Station under section 420 IPC for allegedly cheating the de facto complainant and friends by promising to supply cars at reduced prices and ultimately not delivering either the vehicles or refunds, reportedly involving around Rs. 3 crores. The prosecution contends a common intention with another accused to cheat by misrepresenting automobile deals and siphoning funds through the applicant’s account. The petitioner contends that the transaction was monetary only and that he was duped by the second accused; he asserts readiness to cooperate with investigations and to provide all records and details, including communications with the second accused. A prior order (21.11.2019) directed the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer and furnish full details; the investigation was delayed due to the pendency of this bail matter. The Public Prosecutor argued that the large sum involved and the non-cooperation of the co-accused necessitate the petitioner’s presence to verify accounts, whereas the applicant seeks bail with stringent conditions while ensuring cooperation and adherence to COVID-19 safety guidelines. The court relied on Supreme Court directions on bail and social distancing, ultimately holding that bail is the rule and jail the exception, subject to strict conditions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of CrPCSection 420 of IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant contends that, though the crime is registered under Section 420 IPC, it is essentially a monetary transaction and there is no basis to claim that he personally cheated or caused loss by delivering cars. He submits that he was duped by the second accused, who persuaded him to make cash payments after promising advantageous car deals. The applicant is ready to appear before the investigating officer and provide complete details, including communications and records, to expose the fraud. He points to earlier directions requiring his appearance and to an expressed willingness to cooperate in the investigation and to furnish all information. He emphasizes the need to protect liberty, maintain social distancing in prisons, and rely on established bail jurisprudence that favors release on bail unless there is a compelling reason to deny it.

Contentions of Respondents

The State/Prosecution submits that a huge amount is involved, the 2nd accused has not cooperated, and the presence of the accused is necessary to verify accounts and advance the investigation. It argues that releasing the applicant on bail could impede the investigation, particularly given the parallel case against the 2nd accused. The prosecution also notes the possibility of misuse of money and the risk of tampering with witnesses, and it relies on Supreme Court precedents that balance fair trial rights with the need to protect the integrity of investigations.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Re: Contagion of COVID19 Virus In Prisons case	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Positive	Cited to justify social distancing and related measures inside prisons as part of bail-related considerations during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Used to underscore that bail remains the general rule with exception being the need to ensure fair investigation and trial.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	Positive	Full Bench directions pertaining to minimizing inmate numbers and related precautionary measures influencing bail considerations during the pandemic.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Ajith Kumar Menon v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2020 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.8248 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRL.MC NO.2213/2019 DATED 31-10-2019 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM** **CRIME NO.623/2019 OF THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:** **AJITH KUMAR MENON AGED 62 YEARS S/O.P.K.G.NAIR, KAKKOT HOUSE, ORUMANAYOOR P.O.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921)** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031, (CRIME NO.623/2019 OF THRIKKAKARA EAST POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT). 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 028 (CRIME NO.623/2019 OF THRIKKAKARA EAST POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT).** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.RENJITH T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **B.A. No.8248 of 2019 2** ## **O R D E R** **Dated this the 23[rd] day of July, 2020 ...** **1. This Bail Application filed under Section** **438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.** **2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.623 of 2019 of Thrikkakara Police Station registered alleging offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).** **3. The gist of the prosecution case is that, the petitioner and the 2[nd] accused, with a common intention to cheat the de facto complainant and his friends, promised to supply cars at reduced price and collected approximately Rs.3 crores through bank account of the petitioner and thereby cheated the de facto complainant and his friends by neither supplying the cars nor returning the money.** **4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.** ## **B.A. No.8248 of 2019 3** **5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the above crime was registered in 2019. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court is granting bail to him. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged. It is only a monetary transaction in which an offence under Section 420 IPC is made out.** **6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that huge amount is involved in this case. The 2[nd] accused who was released on bail is not co-operating with the investigation. The presence of the accused is necessary to verify the accounts. The apprehension of the prosecution is that if this Court is granting bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C., he will not co-operate with the investigation.** **7. When this Bail Application came up for consideration on 21.11.2019, this Court passed the following order:** _**“Sri.K.K.Dheerendra Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that the applicant herein had lodged a**_ **B.A. No.8248 of 2019 4** _**complaint before the Inspector of Police, Central Police Station on 4.4.2019 and crime No.763 of 2019 was registered under Section 420 IPC arraying one Muthuswami @ Prabhu as accused. Specific allegation is that a sum of Rs.3 Crores were handed over to the 2[nd] accused for supplying cars, but he failed to do so.**_ _**2. It was much later, ie. 25.4.2019, Crime No.623 of 2019 on 25.4.2019 was registered at the instance of Sri.Hariharan. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the applicant was duped by the aforesaid Muthuswami and he was made to believe that cars can be supplied at good prices if money is paid by cash. Reliance is placed on Annexure-III e-mails. Believing the words of the 2[nd] accused, the applicant gave word to Hariharan that he can arrange cars at good prices and a sum of Rs.3 Crores was received through the applicant's account. The entire money was handed over by cash to the 2[nd] accused as suggested by him in AnnexureIII, submits the learned counsel. The learned counsel finally submits that the applicant is prepared to appear before the investigating officer and furnish the entire details and prays that he be granted an opportunity.**_ _**4. The learned Public Prosecutor is agreeable to the said suggestion.**_ _**5. I have gone through the e-mails produced by the applicant, which suggests that the applicant herein was taken for a ride by**_ **B.A. No.8248 of 2019 5** _**the 2[nd] accused. However, the e-mails cannot be taken as gospel truth at this point of time. However, I am of the view that necessary directions can be issued to the applicant to appear before the investigating officer and produce the entire records in his possession so that the investigating officer will obtain clear materials as to how the fraud was committed.**_ _**6. I direct the applicant to appear before the Investigating Officer on 23.11.2019 at 10 a.m. He shall provide exact details of the communications received by him from the 2[nd] accused and also the manner in which the amounts which were transferred to his account by the applicant.**_ _**Post on 28.11.2019.**_ _**Arrest of the applicant shall be deferred till then.”**_ **8. As directed by this Court, the petitioner** **appeared before the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer questioned the petitioner. The abvoe case is registered in 2019. The investigation of the case itself is delayed because of the pendency of this case. The petitioner assures that, he will co-operate with the investigation. The Public Prosecutor submitted that, the presence of** ## **B.A. No.8248 of 2019 6** **the accused is necessary to complete the investigation. There is no purpose in keeping this Bail Application pending. Admittedly, monetary transactions are involved in this case. Whether an offence under Section 420 IPC is made out is a matter to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that, at the instance of the petitioner, another case is registered and that is clubbed with the present case.** **9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the 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 COVID19 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** ## **B.A. No.8248 of 2019 7** **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.** **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 petitioner 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 petitioner, he shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of** **B.A. No.8248 of 2019 8** **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 on all Mondays', Wednesdays' and Fridays' at 10 a.m. till a final report is filed in this case;** **4. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not threaten or attempt to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence;** **5. If the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation, the Investigating Officer is free to file an application before the Jurisdictional Magistrate to cancel the bail even though this order is passed by this Court;** **6. The petitioner shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with** **B.A. No.8248 of 2019 9** **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** **pkk** **JUDGE**