High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail granted with conditions as stated.

B.A.No. 1530 of 2020

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No. 1530 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Judgment Date
2020-08-03
Court Decision / Holding
The bail application is allowed. The petitioner Sudha Gopakumar shall appear before the Investigating Officer (IO) within ten days for interrogation. After interrogation, if the IO proposes to arrest, she shall be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties. She shall appear before the IO for further interrogation as required, shall not leave India without court permission, shall not commit a like offence, shall comply with social distancing norms, and shall appear before the IO on all Mondays at 10 a.m. until the final report is filed.
Final Disposition
Bail granted with conditions as stated.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sudha Gopakumar

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • Sub Inspector of Police, Kaduthuruthy Police Station, Kaduthuruthy, Kottayam District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Harish R. Menon
  • • K.T. Shyam Kumar
  • • Prasanth A.G.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. Renjith.T.R., PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by Sudha Gopakumar, the accused in Crime No. 117/2020 of Kaduthuruthy Police Station, alleging offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The case emerges from a complaint by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Vaikom, asserting misappropriation of funds by the Vanitha Co-operative Society, Kaduthuruthy, during the petitioner’s tenure as secretary. The prosecution contends misappropriation to the tune of Rs. 1,08,19,807 based on bank records; the petitioner argues the alleged misappropriation arises from record manipulation with the actual bank records available, and that custodial interrogation may be unnecessary since she is suspended from service since 2017 and Section 65 enquiries under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act have been completed in parts with adverse findings against others. The petitioner’s counsel emphasized her willingness to cooperate, while noting that the domestic enquiry is not yet completed and the entire case rests on bank records. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, stressing the magnitude of the amount involved and the necessity of custodial interrogation. The Court, citing COVID-19 social distancing norms and bail principles (bail as a rule, jail as an exception), observed the petitioner’s gender and the completed parts of the enquiry. It granted bail with conditions: appearance for interrogation within ten days; bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; ongoing cooperation; not leaving India; adherence to COVID-19 guidelines; and Monday appearances before the IO until final report."

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of CrPCSection 65 of Kerala Co-operative Societies ActSections 406 and 420 of IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends suspension since 2017 with an already completed Section 65 Co-operative Societies Act enquiry; misappropriation is alleged on the basis of bank records, and the actual misappropriation was by manipulating records. She asserts that custodial interrogation is unnecessary as records are bank-held and she is ready to cooperate with the investigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposes bail given the huge amount involved and argues custodial interrogation is necessary to reveal the truth and to secure evidence.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020)Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1 of 2020Mentioned OnlyCited to justify social distancing norms in prisons; not a binding authority on bail.
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement2019 (16) SCALE 870PositiveUsed to articulate the bail principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020Mentioned OnlyCited as supporting directions by a Full Bench on COVID-19 related guidelines; not binding on the bail order itself.

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 B.A.No. 1530 of 2020 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

B.A.No. 1530 of 2020 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1942** **Bail Appl..No.1530 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.117/2020 OF Kaduthuruthy Police Station, Kottayam** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **SUDHA GOPAKUMAR AGED 51 YEARS W/O. (LATE) GOPAKUMAR, RESIDING AT KARUNNATTU HOUSE, MANNAR, POOZHIKOL P.O, KOTTAYAM 670 521** **BY ADVS. SRI.HARISH R. MENON K.T.SHYAM KUMAR PRASANTH A.G.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPREENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADURUTHY POLICE STATION, KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV.** **SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No. 1530 of 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** ## **=================== B.A.No. 1530 of 2020 =================== Dated this the 3[rd] day of August, 2020** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 117 of 2020 of Kaduthuruthy Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. The case is registered based on the complaint filled by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, General, Vaikom. The allegation against the petitioner is that, while working as Secretary in Vanitha Co-operative society, Kaduthuruthy, the petitioner with dishonest intention to cheat and to have unlawful gain has B.A.No. 1530 of 2020 3 misappropriated the loans offered by the society to its customers. According to the prosecution, the misappropriation were to the extent of Rs. 1,08,19,807/-. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is suspended from service in 2017 in connection with this allegation. The enquiry under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act is already completed. The learned counsel submitted that in the enquiry report there is finding against other persons also. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even if, the entire prosecution case is accepted, the allegation is that there is misappropriation of the fund by manipulating the records. The records of the bank are available in the bank. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary. The learned counsel submitted that, the petitioner is a lady and she is ready to co-operate with the B.A.No. 1530 of 2020 4 investigation. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the amount involved in this case is huge. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. 7. It is an admitted fact that, the petitioner is suspended from the bank in 2017. She is facing enquiry. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the domestic enquiry is not completed. The enquiry under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act is already over. There is finding against the petitioner in that enquiry report. The entire allegations against the petitioner are based on the records of the bank. This bail application was filed on 26.02.2020. This Court passed an interim order deferring the arrest of the petitioner on 19.03.2020. Even now, this interim order is in force. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that B.A.No. 1530 of 2020 5 the petitioner is a lady, I think the bail application can be allowed. 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. 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 B.A.No. 1530 of 2020 6 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 petitioner 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 petitioner, she shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;_ _3. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly_ B.A.No. 1530 of 2020 7 _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 petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court;_ _5. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected;_ _6. The petitioner 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 petitioner shall appear before the Investigation Officer on all Monday's at 10 a.m., till the final report is filed in crime No. 117 of 2020 of the Kaduthurthy Police Station._ B.A.No. 1530 of 2020 8 If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, 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** LU