Bail Applications Nos. 499/2020, 1349/2020 and 1478/2020

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.499 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.153/2020 OF Kottarakkara Police Station , Kollam** ## **PETITIONERS/1ST TO 3RD AND 5TH ACCUSED PERSON:** |**1**|**ANEESH BABU,**| |---|---| ||**AGED 29 YEARS**| ||**S/O.BABU GEORGE, RESIDING AT VAZHAVILA VEEDU,**| ||**AMBALAKKARA P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM - 691 532.**| |**2**|**ANITHA BABU,**| ||**AGED 50 YEARS**| ||**W/O.BABU GEORGE, RESIDING AT VAZHAVILA VEEDU,**| ||**AMBALAKKARA P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM - 691 532.**| |**3**|**BABU GEORGE,**| ||**AGED 54 YEARS**| ||**RESIDING AT VAZHAVILA VEEDU, AMBALAKKARA P.O.,**| ||**KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM - 691 532.**| |**4**|**AKHIL THOMAS,**| ||**AGED 27 YEARS**| ||**RESIDING AT VAZHAVILA VEEDU, AMBALAKKARA P.O.,**| ||**KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM - 691 532.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.R.N.SANDEEP**| ||**DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)**| |**ENTS**|**/COMPLAINANT**<br>**:**| |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF**| ||**KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 18.**| |**2**|**THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,**| ||**KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM - 691 532.**| |**3**|**ADDL R3.KUNJUMON P.T.**| ||**AGED 50 YEARS**| ||**S/O E.THANKACHAN, ROYAL COTTAGE,**| ||**ANCHAL VILLAGE, PUNALUR-691305.**| ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** B.A.No.499/2020 & con. cases 2 **IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R3 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 7/2/2020 IN CRL.MA 1/2020.** **R3 BY ADV. ARUN BABU R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.SUMESH** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.08.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1349/2020, Bail Appl..1478/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.499/2020 & con. cases 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1942** **Bail Appl..No.1349 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.168/2020 OF Kottarakkara Police Station , Kollam** ## **PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:** **ANITHA BABU AGED 50 YEARS W/O. BABU GEORGE, RESIDING AT VAZHAVILA VEEDU, AMBALAKKARA P. O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM - 691 532.** **BY ADV. SRI.R.N.SANDEEP** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** **2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM - 691004.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.S.R.RAHUL FOR R4, SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP, SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, SR.GP.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.08.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..499/2020, Bail Appl..1478/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.499/2020 & con. cases 4 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1942** **Bail Appl..No.1478 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 136/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM** **CRIME NO.168/2020 OF Kottarakkara Police Station , Kollam** ## **PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:** **BOBBY T.VARGHESE, AGED 29 YEARS S/O.THANKACHAN, VELAMKONAM, VALAKOM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** - **2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, KOLLAM RURAL, KOTTARAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM - 691 506.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.08.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..499/2020, Bail Appl..1349/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.499/2020 & con. cases 5 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A.Nos.499/2020, 1349/2020 & B.A.. No. 1478/2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of August, 2020 ## **O R D E R** These Bail Applications filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code were heard through Video Conference. 2. The petitioners in B.A. No.499/2020 are accused in Crime No. 153/2020 of Kottarakkara Police Station. Petitioner in B.A. No.1478/2020 and petitioner in B.A. No.1349/2020 are accused in Crime No. 168 of 2020 of Kottarakkara Police Station. The above cases are registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120-B, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The B.A.No.499/2020 & con. cases 6 allegations in all cases are almost same and therefore, I dispose of these bail applications by a common order. 3. The prosecution case in a nut shell is that the accused in these cases are owners of Vazhavila Cashew factory. Some of the accused are employees of the above factory. The allegation in Crime No.153/2020 is that the accused with an intention to cheat the defacto complainant made an agreement to import 950 ton cashew from Tanzania valued at Rs.14,37,95,317/-. There may be some difference in the amount in the other crime case. The further allegation is that even though the amount is paid, the cashew was not supplied. It is also the prosecution case that the petitioners forged documents to show that the accused are in possession of the cashew and believing the same, the defacto complainant paid the amount. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. The defacto complainant in B.A.No.499/2020 & con. cases 7 Crime No. 153/2020 is impleaded and he is represented through a counsel. I heard the counsel for the defacto complainant in Crime No. 153/2020 also. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are not correct. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, it is only a violation of the contract executed between the accused and the defacto complainant. No criminal offence is made out. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant them bail. 6. The counsel for the defacto complainant seriously opposed the bail applications. The counsel submitted that it is a clear case of forgery. The counsel submitted that they produced documents to show that there is forgery. The counsel submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioners are necessary for finalisation of the investigation. The counsel B.A.No.499/2020 & con. cases 8 submitted that huge amount is involved in these cases and therefore this Court may not pass orders under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that, huge amount is involved in these cases. 8. B.A. No.499/2020 was filed on 20.1.2020. B.A. 1349/2020 was filed on 19.2.2020 and B.A. No. 1478/2020 was filed on 24.2.2020. When these bail applications came up for consideration, this Court passed an order restraining the arrest of the petitioners. Even now that interim order is in force. Basically, the dispute is regarding the non-supply of cashew as agreed by the petitioners. The case of the defacto complainant is that huge amount is paid to the accused for importing cashew from Tanzania and the cashew is not supplied. The further allegation of the prosecution is that the accused forged certain documents to show that the petitioners are in B.A.No.499/2020 & con. cases 9 possession of the cashew and hence the defacto complainant paid the amount. It is true that there is a monetary dispute between the accused and the defacto complainant. Whether ingredients of cheating and forgery are made out or not can can be find out only after investigation. I don't want to make any observation on the merit of the case. These cases are pending before this Court from January 2020 onwards. There is an interim order restraining the arrest of the petitioners in these cases. At this distance of time it will be injustice to deny anticipatory bail to the petitioners. There can be a direction to the petitioners to surrender before the investigating officer and cooperate with the investigation. I also take note of the fact that the first accused in both cases were already arrested and released on bail. The main allegations is against the first accused. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of these cases, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. B.A.No.499/2020 & con. cases 10 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Considering the dictum laid down in the above B.A.No.499/2020 & con. cases 11 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 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. B.A.No.499/2020 & con. cases 12 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. The petitioners will appear before the Investigating officer on all Mondays and Fridays till final report is filed in these cases. 8. The petitioners will surrender their passports before the investigating officer. If there is no passport, they will file affidavits to that effect before the investigating officer. 9. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the B.A.No.499/2020 & con. cases 13 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/-+