BA NOS.5697,6280 & 7547 OF 2018

**BA NOS.5697,6280 & 7547 OF 2018** **1** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1942** **Bail Appl..No.5697 OF 2018** **CRIME NO.732/2018 OF Hemambika Nagar Police Station , Palakkad** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 NIRMALA .P.M, AGED 80 YEARS W/O.LATE SANKARAN NAMBOODIRIPAD, DESAMANGALAM MANA, VADANAMKURISSI, HEMANMBIAKA NAGAR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** - **2 PREETHA PARAMESWARAN, AGED 55 YEARS D/O.LATE SANKARAN NAMBOODIRIPAD, 667, 11TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN, MICO LAYOUT, BTM 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560076.** - **3 MAYA P.M., AGED 54 YEARS D/O.LATE SANKARAN NAMBOODIRIPAD, PANDAMPRAMBATH MANA, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 679577.** **BY ADV. RAJIT** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **ADDL.2 A.K.ABBAS, AGED 48 YEARS,** **S/O KUNJUMAMMI, APPAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, MUNDUR P.O., PALAKKAD. (ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 08/10/2018 IN CRL.MA.NO.01/2018)** **R2 BY ADV. V. RENJITH KUMAR SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.08.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..6280/2018, Bail Appl..7547/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **BA NOS.5697,6280 & 7547 OF 2018** **2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.6280 OF 2018** **CRIME NO.732/2018 OF Hemambika Nagar Police Station , Palakkad** ## **PETITIONER:** **K. SIVARAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 68 YEARS S/O. LATE KOCHU, ADVOCATE, SRI BHAVAN, COLLEGE ROAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY S.I. OF POLICE, HEMAMBIKA NAGAR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADDL. A.K ABBAS, R2 AGED 48 YEARS, S/O KUNJUMAMMI, APPAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, MUNDUR P.O., PALAKKAD. (ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 08/10/2018 IN CRL.MA.NO.01/2018) R1 BY SRI.RENJITH T.R. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV. V.RENJITH KUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.08.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5697/2018, Bail Appl..7547/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **BA NOS.5697,6280 & 7547 OF 2018** **3** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1942** **Bail Appl..No.7547 OF 2018** **CRIME NO.732/2018 OF Hemambika Nagar Police Station , Palakkad** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:** **RAJESH PANANGAD, AGED 46 YEARS S/O M. JAYARAJAN, ADVOCATE, FORT MAIDAN, PALAKKAD.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.ANTONY SMT.K.VIJINA** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I OF POLICE, HEMAMBIKA NAGAR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **ADDL. A.K. ABBAS R2 AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. KUNJUMAMMI, APPAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, MUNDUR P.O., PALAKKAD** ## **R1 BY AJITH MURALI -PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV. V.RENJITH KUMAR** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.08.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5697/2018, Bail Appl..6280/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **BA NOS.5697,6280 & 7547 OF 2018** **4** ## **O R D E R** **[ Bail Appl..5697/2018, Bail Appl..6280/2018, Bail Appl..7547/2018 ]** **Dated this the 12th day of August 2020** These Bail Applications filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code were heard through Video Conference. 2. These bail applications are filed by the petitioners in Crime No.732/2018 of Hemambika Nagar Police Station, Palakkad district. The case is registered against the petitioners alleging the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioners in B.A.No.5697/2018 are accused Nos.3 to 5. The petitioner in B.A No.7547/2018 is the first accused. The petitioner in B.A.No.6280/2018 is the 2[nd] accused. 3. These three cases are the oldest bail applications pending in this Court. These bail applications were filed in 2018. One way or other these bail applications were adjourned. These bail applications were referred for mediation on several occasions. The counsel on both sides submitted that there is every chance to settle the issue. 4. When the bail application came up for consideration **BA NOS.5697,6280 & 7547 OF 2018** **5** at first, there was an order not to arrest the petitioners. Thereafter the bail application came up on 20.8.2018. On that day this Court passed the following order: “Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant herein. I have also gone through Annexure B agreement dated 23.4.2007 and Annexure C order. Having regard to the facts, the arrest of the applicant, if required in Crime No.732 of 2018 of the Hemambika Nagar Police Station will stand deferred by a period of of ten weeks.” 5. Subsequently again the matter came up on 8.10.2018. ## On that day this Court passed the following order: “Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant, who has filed an application seeking intervention. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel that a reasonable possibility exists for settling the disputes through mediation. It is prayed that the matter be referred to the Kerala High Court Mediation Centre for making an attempt to iron out the disputes. Having regard to the facts, the parties are directed to appear before the Mediation Centre, on 16.10.2018 at 10.15 am. The Nodal Officer shall be informed accordingly.” 6. Thereafter, orders were passed by this Court on 26.10.2018, 10.12.2018, 1.3.2019, 8.3.2019, 3.9.2019 and 4.10.2019. At last on 5.12.2019 this Court passed the following order: “When these applications are taken up, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on both sides that the disputes have almost been **BA NOS.5697,6280 & 7547 OF 2018** **6** settled. It is prayed that the same mediator be ordered to take the matter to its logical conclusion. Having regard to the submissions, the cases are made over to the mediation centre. The same mediator shall continue with the proceedings.” 7. When these bail applications came up today for consideration even now the counsel appearing for the parties submitted that the matter is not fully settled. The counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that post dated cheque is issued by the 1[st] accused and the date of the cheque is on 27.8.2020. The counsel submitted that the bail applications may be considered after 27.8.2020. These bail applications cannot be adjourned like this. It is a settled position that the bail applications filed has to be decided immediately either way. The bail application is to be decided after hearing the Public Prosecutor and if the defacto complainant appears, after hearing the defacto complainant also. Therefore, I decided to consider these bail applications on merit. 8. The prosecution case in the crime case is that a sale agreement was executed between the petitioners in B.A No.5697/2018 and the defacto complainant. That agreement was executed on 24.3.2007. The crux of the case of the prosecution is that there is violation of the conditions in Annexure B agreement. **BA NOS.5697,6280 & 7547 OF 2018** **7** 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 10. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out. The counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that the issue is almost settled and this Court may kindly adjourn these bail applications to some other day. 11. The Public Prosecutor even though opposed the bail applications submitted that since these bail applications are pending from 2018 onwards, the investigation of the crime is also in a standstill. 12. After hearing both sides, I think these bail applications can be allowed on stringent conditions. The admitted prosecution case is that there is violation of certain conditions in a sale agreement executed between the petitioners in B.A No.5697/2018 and the defacto complainant. Whether a criminal offence is made out in such situation, is a matter to be investigated by the investigating officer. I do not want to make any observation on merit. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I think these bail applications can be allowed on stringent conditions. 13. Moreover, considering the need to follow social distancing norms inside prisons so as to avert the spread of the **BA NOS.5697,6280 & 7547 OF 2018 8** 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. 14. 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. 15. 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 three weeks 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. **BA NOS.5697,6280 & 7547 OF 2018** **9** 3. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners 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. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional 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 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** **ab**