High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-07-13Bail granted in both Bail Applications (673 of ...

Bail Applications Nos. 673 of 2020 & 1040 of 2020 v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:673 of 2020; 1040 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-07-13
Court Decision / Holding: The bail applications are allowed. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days of the order and shall undergo interrogation. If the IO proposes arrest, they shall be released on bail on bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties each. They shall appear as required, cooperate with the investigation, and shall not threaten or tamper with witnesses nor violate the COVID-19 guidelines issued by the State and Central Governments. Violations may lead to cancellation of bail.
Final Disposition: Bail granted in both Bail Applications (673 of 2020 and 1040 of 2020) with specified conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mujeeb, aged 26 years, S/o Hassan Kutty
Suhrabi, D/o Hassan Kutty
Soudabi, aged 35 years, S/o Komukutty

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Sub Inspector of Police, Kondotty Police Station, Kondotty, Malappuram District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. K. Mohamed Jameel
• P. Samsudin
• M. Anuroop

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Case Synopsis & Summary

These Bail Applications, filed under Section 438 CrPC, arise from Crime No.603/2019 of Kondotty Police Station, Malappuram, and pertain to accused 3 and 4 in a common matter. The prosecution contends offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC, arising from a transaction wherein the first accused was the husband of the second accused; the second accused allegedly mortgaged property to obtain a bank loan, and the property was subsequently sold to the fourth accused and then to the defacto complainant, allegedly without the bank’s knowledge. The petitioners seek bail pending investigation. The defense submits that the loan transaction was subsequently cleared and the property is no longer mortgaged (Annexure-A2 showing a release deed), and that the petitioners are not in a position to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. The Public Prosecutor argues that the acts constitute a clear offence and that bail should not normally be granted given the seriousness of the allegations. The learned Judge applies the general bail principle—bail is the rule and jail is the exception—while noting social distancing directives in prisons due to COVID-19 and directs bail with conditions: the petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days, furnish bonds of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties each, cooperate with the investigation, and comply with COVID-19 guidelines. The orders cover both Bail Applications, enabling release on bail with conditions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of CrPCSections 420, 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
The basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same; bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons to refuse.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the loan transaction has since been cleared and there is no outstanding charge; the second accused was misled by the first accused, and the parties have been living separately; Annexure-A2 shows the release deed. They contend that the case should be considered with the presumption of innocence and that bail should be granted to facilitate a fair trial. They emphasize the social-distancing directives during the COVID-19 pandemic and request release on bail with standard conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The State argues that the sale of property mortgaged to a bank suppresses critical facts and constitutes offences under IPC 420, 468, 471 r/w 34; the investigation should proceed unhindered. It contends that bail should be carefully conditioned to avoid tampering with witnesses and to ensure the bank’s interest and public interest in a fair investigation.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P. v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited for the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, guiding the grant of bail.
Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Positive	Cited for directions to minimize prison population and follow social distancing guidelines in the wake of COVID-19.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	—	Positive	Cited for salutary directions by this Court’s Full Bench on inmate minimization and related guidelines.

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 Bail Applications Nos. 673 of 2020 & 1040 of 2020 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** **MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.673 OF 2020** ## **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 41/2020 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM** **CRIME NO.603/2019 OF Kondotty Police Station , Malappuram** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 3 & 4:** **1 MUJEEB AGED 26 YEARS S/O.HASSANKUTTY, VALIYAPEEDIYEKKAL HOUSE, KUNNAMANGALAM.P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST. 2 SUHRABI, D/O.HASSANKUTTY, VALIYAPEEDIYEKKAL HOUSE, KUNNAMANGALAM.P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** - **2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONDOTTY POLICE STATION, KONDOTTY.P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST.-673638.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1040/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **2** **B.A.Nos.673 of 2020 & 1040 of 2020** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1942** **Bail Appl..No.1040 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 30/2020 DATED 30-01-2020 OF DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI** **CRIME NO.603/2019 OF Kondotty Police Station , Malappuram** ## **PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:** **SOUDABI, AGED 35 YEARS D/O. KOMUKUTTY, PULPARAMBA HOSE, PULIYAKODE, MUNDAMPARAMBA, KONDOTTY TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN SRI.M.ANUROOP** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONDOTTY (CRIME NO 603/2019)** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR.PP. D. CHANDRASENAN** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..673/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **3** **B.A.Nos.673 of 2020 & 1040 of 2020** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** -------------------------------- B.A.Nos.673 of 2020 & 1040 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of July, 2020 ## **O R D E R** These Bail Applications are filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code . 2. Petitioners in these Bail Applications are accused in the same crime. Therefore, I am disposing of these Bail Applications by a common order. 3. The petitioners are accused in Crime No.603 of 2019 of Kondotty Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners and another alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. 4. The petitioner in B.A. No.1040/2020 is the second accused and petitioners in B.A. 673/2020 are the third and **4** **B.A.Nos.673 of 2020 & 1040 of 2020** fourth accused. 5. The prosecution case is that the first accused is the husband of second accused. The second accused sold a property to the fourth accused and fourth accused sold the property to the defacto complainant. But subsequently, the defacto complainant came to know that the property was actually mortgaged by the second accused for availing a loan from a bank. Therefore, the petitioners committed the offence. 6. The counsel for the petitioner in B.A. No.1040/2020 submitted that she is the wife of the first accused. The first accused and the petitioner are living separately for the last two years. The first accused is the man behind this. She is not aware of anything about this transaction. 7. The counsel for the petitioners in B.A. No. 673/2020 submitted that the loan transaction is subsequently cleared and there is no charge to the property now. He produced Annexure-A2 form for release deed of **5** **B.A.Nos.673 of 2020 & 1040 of 2020** gehan. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is a clear case where the petitioners committed the offence by selling a property suppressing the fact that the property is mortgaged in a bank for availing a loan. According to him the property is sold without the knowledge of the bank. 9. After hearing both sides, I think these Bail Applications can be allowed. 10. Petitioner in B.A.No.1040/2020 says that her husband is the person behind the transaction. She submitted that she is living separately with her husband for the last two years. The counsel for the petitioners in B.A.No.673/2020 also submitted that the loan taken from the bank for which the property is mortgaged is already cleared as evident from Annexure-A2. 11. 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 **6** **B.A.Nos.673 of 2020 & 1040 of 2020** 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. 12. 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. 13. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I think, these Bail Applications can be allowed with the following directions: **7** **B.A.Nos.673 of 2020 & 1040 of 2020** 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 as and when required. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not threaten or attempt to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. 4. 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. **8** ## **B.A.Nos.673 of 2020 & 1040 of 2020** 5. 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** al/-+