David George v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2023-05-09
Court Decision / Holding: Bail applications allowed; petitioner to be released on bail on bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties for like amount; appearance before IO as required; cooperate with investigation; not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court; shall not commit a similar offence; violation may lead to cancellation; bail granted under Sec.439 Cr.P.C. with stringent conditions.
Final Disposition: Bail granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

David George

Respondents

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

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Boby Thomas
• C. Anoop

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

These bail applications, BA Nos. 3426 and 3405 of 2023, were filed by David George, accused in Crime Nos. 1017/2022 and 995/2022 of Koipuram Police Station, Pathanamthitta. The petitioner, aged 64, is described as the manager of a branch of PRD Mini Nidhi Company; the prosecution alleges that the accused, in his capacity as director or manager, induced the defacto complainant to deposit substantial funds with a promise of higher interest and that the company failed to return the deposit after the scheme expired. The offences alleged include sections 409 and 420 IPC read with 34, and offences under the Banning of Unregulated Deposits Schemes Act. The petitioner contends that he is only an employee of the company and not the principal culprit; he points to other accused being granted bail in similar cases and notes his prior grant of anticipatory bail in another case. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, arguing that the offences are grave and involve multiple persons and cases. The court, after considering the facts, the role of the 2nd accused as an employee, and prior bail grants, invokes the well-settled principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement to justify imposing stringent conditions. The court grants bail subject to conditions including bond, two sureties, cooperation, travel restrictions, and avoidance of further offences.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 Cr.P.C.Section 409, 420 read with Section 34 IPCBanning of Unregulated Deposits Schemes Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule, and jail is the exception
Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 16 SCALE 870 (principle supporting bail)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is only the Manager of a branch of the Company; the company has 43 branches; the 1st accused is the director; the petitioner is not the main culprit; other bail orders in similar cases; the petitioner is ready to abide conditions; the petitioner was previously granted anticipatory bail in 2022; the prosecution contends the charge is serious and others have similar allegations; the court should balance the presumption of innocence with the need to ensure fair trial.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, contending that the offences are serious and the petitioner is connected with the company as an employee; the 1st accused is the main culprit; there are multiple cases with similar allegations; bail may jeopardize investigation; the court should not grant unconditional bail.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited to affirm the basic bail principle that bail is the rule and the court should adopt cautious conditions; supports reliance on bail as rule.

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 TUESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 19TH VAISAKHA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 3426 OF 2023** **(CRIME NO.1017/2022 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 ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAIANT:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KOIPURAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN – 689548 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ## **OTHER PRESENT:** PP; T V NEEMA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 **B.A. No.3426 & 3405 of 2023** # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 19TH VAISAKHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 3405 OF 2023** **(CRIME NO.995/2022 OF THE KOIPURAM POLICE STATION,** ## **PATHANAMTHITTA** ## **PETITIONER/ACCCUSED 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 ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KOIPURAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689548 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SR PP C.N PRABHAKARAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 3 ## **B.A. No.3426 & 3405 of 2023** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **-------------------------------B.A.Nos.3426 & 3405 of 2023** **------------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of May, 2023** ## **O R D E R** These Bail Applications are filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The petitioner in these bail applications are one and the same and hence, I am disposing of these bail applications by a common order. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1017 of 2022 & Crime No.995 of 2022 of Koipuram Police Station, Pathanamthitta. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The offences under the Banning of Unregulated Deposits Schemes Act is also alleged. 3. The prosecution case is that the 1[st] accused being the Director of a financial institution namely PRD Mini Nidhi 4 ## **B.A. No.3426 & 3405 of 2023** Company, induced the defacto complainant to deposit huge amount in the Company with a promise of a higher interest rate and 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 offences. The petitioner was arrested and he is in custody. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is only the Manager of one of the branch of the Company. It is submitted that the Company has got 43 branches and the petitioner was only an employee of the Company. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and the 1[st] accused is the main culprit. It is also submitted that in several cases, the petitioners were already released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the petitioner was released on anticipatory bail in one of the crime as per order dated 15.11.2022 in B.A. 5 ## **B.A. No.3426 & 3405 of 2023** No.8453/2022. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grants him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence alleged against the petitioner the petitioner is very serious and the petitioner is involved in several cases with same set of allegations. 6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The petitioner is the 2[nd] accused. Admittedly, he is the employee of the Company in which the 1[st] accused is the Director. This Court released the petitioner on bail invoking the powers under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. in one of the crime as per order dated 15.11.2022 in BA No.8453/2022. This Court also released the petitioner under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. in some other connected cases in which the allegations are similar. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. 7. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail 6 ## **B.A. No.3426 & 3405 of 2023** 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. 8. 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: i) 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. ii) 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 7 ## **B.A. No.3426 & 3405 of 2023** 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. iii) Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. iv) 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. v) 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** ams 8 ## **B.A. No.3426 & 3405 of 2023** ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3426/2023** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.1017/2022 OF THE KOIPURAM POLICE STATION 9 ## **B.A. No.3426 & 3405 of 2023** ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3405/2023** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.995/2022 OF THE KOIPURAM POLICE STATION