B.A.Nos. 3429, 3430, 3462, 3464 & 3468 of 2023 (Common Order)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2023-05-05
Court Decision / Holding: These Bail Applications are allowed. The petitioners are to be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as required, cooperate with the investigation, not induce or threaten witnesses, not leave India without court permission, not commit any offence similar to those charged, and the Court may cancel bail for any violation of these conditions.
Final Disposition: Bail applications allowed; bail granted to the petitioner in all five cases.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

David George

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
The Station House Officer, Koipuram Police Station, Pathanamthitta District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Boby Thomas
• C. C. Anoop

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

Five bail applications (BA Nos. 3429, 3430, 3462, 3464 and 3468 of 2023) were heard together before Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The petitions arise from five Koipuram police station crimes (CR Nos. 1011/2022, 1014/2022, 1022/2022, 1019/2022 and 1053/2022) filed in Pathanamthitta, all connected to the PRD Mini Nidhi Company. The petitioner in each case is the fifth accused, David George, aged 64, described as an employee of the company, while the other accused are the directors/managers. The offences alleged include sections 420 and 409 IPC read with 34, and violations under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, with funds deposited by the defacto complainants and not returned upon scheme expiry. The petitioner contends that he is only an employee and was previously released on bail in similar matters, including a case under Section 438 CrPC. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail. The court reiterated the well-established principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) (SC SCALE 870). After hearing both sides, the court allowed the bail applications with standard conditions: bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties; appearance before the IO; cooperation; no inducement; no leave without court permission; and a power to cancel bail for violation. The order was authored by P. V. Kunhikrishnan, J.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 CrPCSections 420 and 409 read with 34 of the Indian Penal CodeBanning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner, the fifth accused in the five crimes, is only an employee of the company and not a director or key officer. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is in custody but has been granted bail in similar matters in this Court previously. It was urged that releasing the petitioner on bail would not undermine the investigation and that he should be treated similarly to co-accused in comparable cases where bail was granted.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, stressing the seriousness of the offences involving alleged misappropriation of deposits via the Nidhi scheme and the potential risk of jeopardizing the investigation and influencing witnesses. The Prosecution contended that the petition should not be granted bail given the nature of the scheme and the involvement of multiple accused, including directors and managers.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited to support the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception; used to justify granting bail in the present cases.

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 5[TH] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 15TH VAISAKHA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3429 OF 2023 ``` ## `CRIME NO.1011 OF 2022 OF THE KOIPURAM POLICE STATION,` ## `PATHANAMTHITTA` ## `PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5:` ``` DAVID GEORGE AGED 64 YEARS S/O K T DAVID, KAVUMTHUNDIYIL HOUSE, CHIRAYIRAMBU PO, MARAMON, THOTTAPUZHASSERI VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST., PIN - 689549 BY ADVS. BOBY THOMAS C.C.ANOOP ``` ## `RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682031 2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KOIPURAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689548 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` SRI.VIPIN NARAYANAN-GP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` # B.A.Nos. 3429, 3430, 3462, 3464 & 3468 of 2023 2 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 15TH VAISAKHA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3430 OF 2023 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1014 OF 2022 OF THE KOIPURAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA ``` ## `PETITIONER/ACCUSED 5:` ``` DAVID GEORGE AGED 64 YEARS S/O K T DAVID, KAVUMTHUNDIYIL HOUSE, CHIRAYIRAMBU PO, MARAMON, THOTTAPUZHASSERI VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST., PIN - 689549 BY ADVS. BOBY THOMAS C.C.ANOOP ``` ## `RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682031 2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KOIPURAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689548 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` SMT.NIMA JACOB-GP ``` ## B.A.Nos. 3429, 3430, 3462, 3464 & 3468 of 2023 3 ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` # B.A.Nos. 3429, 3430, 3462, 3464 & 3468 of 2023 4 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 15TH VAISAKHA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3462 OF 2023 ``` ``` CRIME NO. 1022 OF 2022 OF THE KOIPURAMK POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA ``` ## `PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5:` ``` DAVID GEORGE AGED 64 YEARS SON OF K.T DAVID, KAVUMTHUNDIYIL HOUSE, CHIRAYIRAMBU P.O, MARAMON THOTTAPUZHASSERI VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689549 BY ADVS. C.C.ANOOP BOBY THOMAS ``` ## `RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682031 2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KOIPURAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689548 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` SMT.NIMA JACOB-GP ``` ## B.A.Nos. 3429, 3430, 3462, 3464 & 3468 of 2023 5 ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` # B.A.Nos. 3429, 3430, 3462, 3464 & 3468 of 2023 6 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 15TH VAISAKHA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3464 OF 2023 ``` ``` CRIME NO. 1053 OF 2022 OF THE KOIPURAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA ``` ## `PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5:` ``` DAVID GEORGE AGED 64 YEARS SON OF K.T DAVID, KAVUMTHUNDIYIL HOUSE, CHIRAYIRAMBU P.O, MARAMON THOTTAPUZHASSERI VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689549 BY ADVS. C.C.ANOOP BOBY THOMAS ``` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682031 2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KOIPURAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689548 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` SMT.NIMA JACOB-GP ``` ## B.A.Nos. 3429, 3430, 3462, 3464 & 3468 of 2023 7 ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` # B.A.Nos. 3429, 3430, 3462, 3464 & 3468 of 2023 8 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 15TH VAISAKHA, 1945 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3468 OF 2023 ``` ``` CRIME NO. 1019 OF 2022 OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION, ``` ## `PATHANAMTHITTA` ## `PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5:` ``` DAVID GEORGE AGED 64 YEARS SON OF K.T DAVID, KAVUMTHUNDIYIL HOUSE, CHIRAYIRAMBU P.O, MARAMON THOTTAPUZHASSERI VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689549 BY ADVS. C.C.ANOOP BOBY THOMAS ``` ## `RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682031 2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KOIPURAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689548 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` OTHER PRESENT: ``` ``` SMT.NIMA JACOB-GP ``` B.A.Nos. 3429, 3430, 3462, 3464 & 3468 of 2023 9 ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.Nos. 3429, 3430, 3462, 3464 & 3468 of 2023 10 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **-------------------------------B.A.Nos. 3429, 3430, 3462, 3464 & 3468 of 2023 ------------------------------Dated this the 5[th] day of May, 2023** **C O M M O N O R D E R** These Bail Applications are filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code . 2. The petitioner in these case are accused in Crime Nos. 1019/2022, 1053/2022, 1022/2022, 1014/2022 and 1011/2022 of Koipuram Police Station, Pathanamthitta. The above cases are registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. The offences punishable under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act is also alleged. 3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: The directors and manager of a financial institution, namely PRD MINI NIDHI Company, induced the defacto ## B.A.Nos. 3429, 3430, 3462, 3464 & 3468 of 2023 ## 11 complainants in these cases to deposit huge amount with a promise of higher interest rate and the accused failed to return the amount to the defacto complainant even after the expiry of the scheme. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in these cases are the 5[th] accused in the respective crimes and he is only an employee of the company. Directors and the other office bearers of the company are the main accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was released on bail by this Court in similar allegation in BA.No. 3404/2023 and 3402/2023. He also submitted that the petitioner was released on bail in one of the crime under Section 438 CrPc also. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. B.A.Nos. 3429, 3430, 3462, 3464 & 3468 of 2023 12 5. After hearing both sides, I think these bail applications can be allowed. The petitioner in these bail applications is in custody. The petitioner is only an employee of the company. This Court released the petitioner in some other case which similar set of facts . Therefore, I think the petitioner can be released in these crimes also. 6. 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. 7. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of ## B.A.Nos. 3429, 3430, 3462, 3464 & 3468 of 2023 13 this case, these Bail Applications are allowed with the following directions: 1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. 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 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. 3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. ## B.A.Nos. 3429, 3430, 3462, 3464 & 3468 of 2023 14 5. 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** mtk