Bail Application No. 266 of 2020 (B.A. No.266 of 2020)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-09-16
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed on stringent conditions.
Final Disposition: Bail granted on stringent conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vineesh.M.A
Faisel.K
Vijesh.K.A
Sandeep Gopi

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Addl.R2 Viswanathan N

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Zubair Pulikool
• Sri P.S. Binu

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri P. Jeril Babu
• Sri Renjith.T.R., P.P.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court bail application (Bail Application No. 266 of 2020) arising from Crime No. 435/2019 of Panniyankara Police Station, Kozhikode District. The four petitioners/accused are charged under Sections 463, 464, 465, 466 and 420 r/w Section 34 IPC, alleging forgery in a sale transaction of a car. The defacto complainant contends that the petitioners forged his signature and produced a forged sale agreement to obtain civil court orders. The defacto complainant had filed counter materials, and a civil suit (O.S. 339/2019) is pending before the Munsiff Court, Kozhikode, with an injunction restraining removal of the vehicle from custody of the first petitioner. The petitioners sought relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C., contending the sale is genuine and that custodial interrogation is not necessary. The State opposed bail, arguing the need for custodial interrogation and highlighting forgery supported by documents. The court noted the ongoing civil proceedings and the dispute over the genuineness of the sale agreement but proceeded to allow bail under stringent conditions, reflecting the general principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, while balancing social distancing norms during the COVID-19 pandemic. The order directs appearance before the IO within ten days, bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, ongoing cooperation, compliance with conditions, and non-violation of COVID-19 guidelines.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 Cr.P.C.Sections 463, 464, 465, 466, 420 r/w Section 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the allegations are not correct and that the sale agreement produced before the Civil Court is genuine. They argued that a civil suit (O.S.339/2019) is pending and that there is an injunction preventing removal of the vehicle from the first petitioner’s custody. They expressed readiness to comply with any stringent conditions for bail.

Contentions of Respondents

The State argued custodial interrogation was necessary; the defacto complainant opposed bail and produced documents alleging forgery, including a forged signature presented before the civil court. The prosecution contended that the matter requires investigation before grant of bail.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Positive	Cited to justify social distancing directions in prisons during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited for the bail jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

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** **WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 25TH BHADRA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.266 OF 2020** ## **CRIME NO.435/2019 OF PANNIYANKARA POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE DISTRICT** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4:** - **1 VINEESH.M.A,AGED 35 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN, MELEDADUVATHIL HOUSE, KANNANKARA, CHELANNUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,PIN-673 616** - **2 FAISEL.K.,AGED 37 YEARS S/O. ALI.K.P.KOTTUMPURATH HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMMURI, KAKKODI, KOZHIKOODE DISTRICT,IN-673 611** - **3 VIJESH.K.AGED 44 YEARS S/O. RAMACHANDRAN.K.,VIJESH NIVAS, GIRISH NAGAR, NALLALAM P.O., KOZHIKKOD DISTRICT,PIN-673 027** - **4 SANDEEP GOPI,AGED 26 YEARS S/O. GOPI.N.R., NOOREKKATTU, MUTHAPPAN PUZHA, PULLURAMPARA P.O., KOZHIKKOD DISTRICT,PIN-673 027** **BY ADVS. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL SRI.P.S.BINU** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 031** - **2 ADDL.R2 VISWANATHAN N AGED 37 YEARS S/O NADARAJAN, MADAMBANARI HOUSE, AZHCHAVATTAM, MANKAVU PO, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-673007.** **IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 12/2/2020 IN CRL.MA NO.2/2020 IN BA-266/2020.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.JERIL BABU** **R1 BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **B.A.NO.266 OF 2020 2** ## **O R D E R** **Dated this the 16th day of September 2020** ... **This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was heard through Video Conference.** **2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.435 of 2019 of Panniyankara Police Station, Kozhikode District. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 463, 464, 465, 466, 420 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).** **3. The prosecution case is that, the car bearing No.KL-14-P-3577 owned by the defacto complainant was entrusted with 'Best Used Car' at Thiruvannur, Panniyankara wherein the 1[st] accused is a partner. The car was entrusted for sale. According to the prosecution case, accused 1 to 4, in furtherance of their common intention forged the signature of the defacto complainant and prepared a sale agreement and produced the same before the civil court and obtained** ## **B.A.NO.266 OF 2020 3** **orders. Hence, it is alleged that, the accused** **committed the said offences.** **4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned public prosecutor.** **5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the allegations against the petitioners are not correct. According to the counsel, it is a genuine sale agreement executed with the defacto complainant. The counsel submitted that, the petitioners filed O.S. No.339 of 2019 before the Munsiff Court-1A, Kozhikode against the defacto complainant and there is also an injunction order from the civil court restraining the defacto complainant not to remove the vehicle from the custody of the 1[st] petitioner. The counsel submitted that the matter is pending before the civil court. The counsel submitted that, the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court is granting bail to them.** **6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed this** ## **B.A.NO.266 OF 2020 4** **bail application. The public prosecutor submitted that, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary in this case. The defacto complainant appeared through a counsel. The defacto complainant also opposed this bail application. The defacto complainant filed a counter statement in this bail application producing documents to prove his case. Annexure R2(1) is the private complaint filed by the defacto complainant. Annexures R2(2), R2(3) and R2(4) are the other documents produced by the defacto complainant. According to the counsel, it is a clear case of forgery. The counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that, the signature of the defacto complainant is forged by the petitioners and the same was produced before the civil court and obtained orders from the court. The counsel submitted that, in such circumstances, this Court may not issue orders under Section 438 Cr.P.C.** **7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, a suit is pending before a civil court.** **B.A.NO.266 OF 2020 5** **According to the petitioners, the sale agreement which is produced before the civil court is genuine. According to the defacto complainant it is a forged one. The matter is pending before the civil court. Whether the forgery is there and whether the forgery was committed before producing the alleged agreement before the civil court or not is a matter to be investigated by the investigating officer. I do not want to make any observation about the merit of this case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this bail application is 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.** **B.A.NO.266 OF 2020 6** **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 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 proposes to arrest the petitioners, they shall be** **B.A.NO.266 OF 2020 7** **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 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. The petitioners shall not leave** **India without permission of the Court;** **5. The petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or** **B.A.NO.266 OF 2020 8** ## **suspected, of the commission of which** **they are suspected;** **6. The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays' at 10 a.m. till the final report in Crime No.435/2019 of Panniyankara Police Station, Kozhikode** **District is filed;** **7. The petitioners shall produce their passport before the investigating officer. If there is no passport, the petitioners shall file an affidavit to that effect before the investigating officer;** **8. 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;** **9. If any of the above conditions** **B.A.NO.266 OF 2020 9** **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** **pkk** **JUDGE**