High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeGranted (Bail granted)

Bail Applications Nos. 9977/2022, 10015/2022 and 10423/2022 v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NOS. 9977/2022, 10015/2022, 10423/2022; CRIME NO.1187/2022 (Malappuram Police Station)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-07-21
Court Decision / Holding
These bail applications are allowed; petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days for interrogation. After interrogation, if the IO proposes arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail on bonds of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties each; they shall cooperate and shall not leave India without court permission; they shall not commit similar offences; the jurisdictional court may cancel bail if conditions are violated.
Final Disposition
Granted (Bail granted)

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Hafees Shahi
  • K Muhammed Ismayil
  • Abdul Nasar E O
  • Abdul Basheer K
  • Salim P
  • Sajay P

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • The Station House Officer, Malappuram Police Station

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • V. N. Ramesan Nambiar
  • • Abdul Jawad K.
  • • Abdul Majeed N A Grancy Jose
  • • K. Sujai Sathian
  • • Gouri Meempat
  • • Sangeetha Sreekumar
  • • T. Sethumadhavan (Sr.)

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor, State of Kerala

Case Synopsis & Summary

These bail petitions arise from Crime No.1187/2022 registered at Malappuram Police Station, alleging offences under sections 406, 409, 420 read with 34 IPC, involving misappropriation of funds allotted to the Kudumbasree District Mission, Malappuram (2005-2010). The petitioners contend they joined service after 2010 and had no role in the alleged misappropriation; the FIR rests on an enquiry report, the stay of which by this Court in WP(C) No.40650/2022 has significant implications for investigation. The State argues that the petitioners have not cooperated with the enquiry. The Court, noting the stay on the enquiry report, directs the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, since the case primarily involves documentary evidence and custodial interrogation may not be necessary. Relying on the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement that bail is the rule and jail the exception to safeguard fair trial, the Court allows the petitions with conditions: the petitioners must appear for interrogation within ten days; after interrogation, if arrest is proposed, they may be released on bail on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties; they must cooperate, refrain from leaving India, and not commit similar offences; non-compliance can lead to cancellation of bail. The orders consolidate the three applications, reflecting a preference for fair trial while enabling investigation.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC sections 406, 409, 420 read with section 34 (r/w 34)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
  • Grant of bail ensures opportunity for a fair trial

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argue that they were appointed after 2010 and had no role in the alleged misappropriation; the FIR is based on an enquiry report stayed by this Court in WP(C)40650/2022, limiting their involvement. They claim non-cooperation is not established against them and that custodial interrogation is unnecessary since evidence is largely documentary; with stay on the enquiry report, the Court can direct interrogation while preserving liberty.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends the accused were part of the scheme that misappropriated funds and that cooperation with the investigation has been lacking; given the serious nature of the offences and the likelihood of documentary evidence, arrest may be warranted if needed. The State seeks to ensure a fair and effective investigation without unduly infringing liberty.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement2019 (16) SCALE 870PositiveThe court relies on the Supreme Court’s ruling that bail is the rule and jail is the exception to ensure a fair trial.

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. 9977/2022, 10015/2022 and 10423/2022 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 FRIDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 9977 OF 2022 CRIME NO.1187/2022 OF MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:`** ``` HAFEES SHAHI, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O ELLATH MOIDU, AGED 42 YEARS, ELLATH HOUSE, P.O. UPHILL, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676505 ``` ``` BY ADV V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SMT. MAYA M.N., PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.07.2023, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..10015/2022, 10423/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 B.A.9977/22, 10015/22 &10423/22 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 10015 OF 2022 CRIME NO.1187/2022 OF MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1, 4 & 6:`** - `1 K MUHAMMED ISMAYIL, AGED 59 YEARS S/O.ALAVIKUTTY, KORAKKANDAN HOUSE, VELLUR P.O, POOKKOTTUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676517` - `2 ABDUL NASAR E O, AGED 64 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, THANAL, PARAPPANANGADI P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676303` - `3 ABDUL BASHEER K, AGED 39 YEARS S/O.K.MUHAMMED, KATTUMUNDA HOUSE, VADAPURAM P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676542 BY ADVS. ABDUL JAWAD K. ABDUL MAJEED.N A.GRANCY JOSE` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031` - `2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676505` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SMT. MAYA M.N., PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.07.2023, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..9977/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 B.A.9977/22, 10015/22 &10423/22 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 10423 OF 2022 CRIME NO.1187/2022 OF MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 AND 5:`** ``` 1SALIM P, S/O.MOHAMMED MASTER, AGED 56 YEARS, PULALTTIL HOUSE, KADAMPUZHA P.O MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676553 2SAJAY P, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.JAYAKRISHNAN, PUTHANPURA, POOKAYIL BAZAR P.O TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676107 BY ADVS. K.SUJAI SATHIAN GOURI MEEMPAT SANGEETHA SREEKUMAR T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SR.)(S-310) ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2STATION HOUSE OFFICER MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION, UP HILL P.O, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SMT. MAYA M.N., PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.07.2023, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..9977/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 4 B.A.9977/22, 10015/22 &10423/22 **P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------Bail Application Nos.9977, 10015 and 10423 of 2022 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of July, 2023** ## **ORDER** These bail applications are filed by the accused in Crime No.1187/2022 of Malappuram Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under sections 406, 409, 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that the plan fund to the extent of Rs.43,03,116/- allotted to the office of the District Mission Coordinator, District Kudumbasree Mission, Malappuram for the year 2005-2010 was misappropriated by the accused, including the petitioners. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were appointed subsequent to 2010 and they have no role in the alleged misappropriation. It is also submitted that the enquiry report based on which FIR is registered is stayed by this Court in 5 B.A.9977/22, 10015/22 &10423/22 W.P(C).No.40650/2022. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners are not co-operating with the investigation. 5. This Court considered the contention of the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Since the enquiry report based on which the FIR is registered is stayed by this Court, I think the petitioners can be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer for interrogation. Since the allegation is mainly regarding the misappropriation of fund, that can be proved through documents if necessary and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary. 6. These bail applications are pending before this Court from 2022 onwards. In all these bail applications, there was an order not to arrest the petitioners. This bail application need not be retained. The petitioners can be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer and the investigation can interrogate them in accordance with law. 7. 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 6 B.A.9977/22, 10015/22 &10423/22 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. 8. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, these Bail Applications are allowed with the following directions: 1. 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 released on bail on 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. 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; 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. If any of the above conditions are violated by the B.A.9977/22, 10015/22 &10423/22 7 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** Sbna/ 8 B.A.9977/22, 10015/22 &10423/22 ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 10015/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure -AA TRUE COPY OF THE CITIZEN COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1187/2022 OF MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE KERALA POLICE Annexure - BA TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 23/02/2012 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Annexure - CA TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/12/2011 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Annexure - DA TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25/11/2022 BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, KUDUMBASHREE DISTRICT MISSION OFFICE AT MALAPPURAM SHOWING THE LIST OF PERSONS WORKED IN THE OFFICE DURING 2012-2017 AND 2005-2010 ``` 9 B.A.9977/22, 10015/22 &10423/22 ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 10423/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure ATHE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 3/12/2022 IN CRIME NO. 1187/2022 OF MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION Annexure BA TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED DATED 22/10/ 2022 TO 1ST PETITIONER Annexure CA TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED DATED 22/10/ 2022 TO 2ND PETITIONER Annexure DTHE REPLY BY 1ST PETITIONER DATED 28/11/2022 Annexure ETHE REPLY BY 2ND PETITIONER DATED 26/11/2022 Annexure FA TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION PREFERRED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 08/12/2022 Annexure GA TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITIONS PREFERRED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 08/12/2022 Annexure HTHE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) 40650/2022 DATED 19/12/2022 ``` B.A.9977/22, 10015/22 &10423/22 10 ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 9977/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure -1TRUE COPY OF STATEMENTS CONTAINING THE NATURE OF DUTIES OF THE PETITIONER PERFORMED WHILE WORKING AS ASSISTANT DISTRICT CO-ORDINATOR, KUDUMBASREE MISSION, MALAPPURAM Annexure -2TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5-12-2022 FILED BY ONE HASNATH BEEVI BEFORE THE INFORMATION OFFICER, DISTRICT KUDUMBASREE MISSION, MALAPURAM Annexure -3TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 15-12-2022 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT CO-ORDINATOR, KUDUMBASREE MISSION, MALAPPURAM. ```